BBC Licence Fee to go in 2027

exocet

EricTheWeary said:

monquixote said:

exocet said:

jonnyburgo said:

I'm sure there weren't that many ad breaks when I was a kid. 

I don't know for  sure but I suspect that you are correct. This used to be strictly controlled and was part of the license terms (not TV License rather the license to run an Independent TV Broadcast company like it used to be when there were loads of different companies...ATV, Granada, Thames etc).

Increased ads per hour is a sign of declining revenues (driven by lower audiences / many alternative digital ad platforms that now exist).

UK "ITV" used to be pretty reasonable for watching a movie. I lived in Australia for a year in 1993 - ads were shown every 8 minutes. Films were unwatchable.

Can't see much of a future in quality content via ad revenue based channel.

There are still very strict rules about ads.

Tom Scott did a good video about it a while back

The amount of ads allowed on different types of channels is different IIRC so fewer on ITV and C4 than the ‘digital’ channels although I think this doesn’t include trailers which all channels seem to have incessantly now. 

Controlled by Ofcom but I'm pretty sure that they are permitted more ad time per hour now compared to the 1980s / 90s.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/16328/rules.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjl55CLibz1AhXHEcAKHflgCqUQFnoECAMQBg&usg=AOvVaw0iMfYKxXamxEwd9HS9ue8f

Kittyfrisk

Danny1969 said:

Kittyfrisk said:

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

I think the Royal Family actually bring more money into the pot then they consume, so we probably pay a tiny bit less tax as a result. So they get a pass from me
I don't think the BBC quite manage to do this 

OK, you can pay for the self appointed so called Royal Family.
Unelected, undemocratic, entitled through historical theft, murder etc.

I'll pay for the less self interested, more accountable BBC. Deal?    

UnclePsychosis

What, exactly, do the "Conservatives" want to conserve? Because it certainly isn't any kind of British cultural values or our position as a worldwide cultural powerhouse. The fact they're willing to throw the BBC under the bus because they don't like being asked an embarrassing question once every few months is just the latest in the pathetic depths they're prepared to sink to. 

There's a reason why all these interesting documentaries about bands that we all love are on BBC and not on Netflix. Same reason why all the good quality educational TV is on cbeebies and not on ITV. Same reason John Peel was on the beeb. Same reason Gaelic and Welsh language programming isn't on Sky. Or why I can listen to coverage of lower league Scottish football live on iplayer but not on commercial radio. It's not commercially viable, but that doesn't make it not worthwhile. 

You can tell the kind of people who can only conceive of value in monetary terms because they're often the same people who complain that our national broadcaster doesn't provide any. 

Honestly, anyone complaining about the BBC should be forced to go and watch Spanish or Italian or even US broadcasting for a month just to see exactly what they're asking for. I'm honestly astounded that so many of us are so short sighted as to be prepared to throw all that away for 45p a week or whatever it costs. 

darthed1981

Not sure why everyone thinks alternate funding models would do anything but destroy the BBC...

General taxation... be nice about the government or bye-bye funding.  The strategy that the tories are using now, but worse.

Advertising... make programmes advertisers like, nothing edgy "our focus group shows our core buyers are elderly and white so we'd like more racism please..."

Subscription... how many people watched? Not enough, you're axed chum, "sorry Sir David you didn't grow our subscriber count, does it look like we give a fuck, my children can afford boats..."

If anyone else talks about the BBC or anyone else being "woke" because people have suddenly realised the entire country isn't elderly white misogynist bigots, a d we are going through a bit of a correction, they can officially shove it and go watch love thy neighbour on YouTube (yes, it's on there)...

vasselmeyer

Danny1969 said:

Kittyfrisk said:

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

I think the Royal Family actually bring more money into the pot then they consume, so we probably pay a tiny bit less tax as a result. So they get a pass from me
I don't think the BBC quite manage to do this 

You are mistaken. A Deloitte study in 2011 on the economic impact of the BBC showed that for every £1 spent on the license fee, the UK economy gained £2 in revenue. That's significant money and the only reason for killing the BBC is ideological.

Danny1969

vasselmeyer said:

Danny1969 said:

Kittyfrisk said:

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

I think the Royal Family actually bring more money into the pot then they consume, so we probably pay a tiny bit less tax as a result. So they get a pass from me
I don't think the BBC quite manage to do this 

You are mistaken. A Deloitte study in 2011 on the economic impact of the BBC showed that for every £1 spent on the license fee, the UK economy gained £2 in revenue. That's significant money and the only reason for killing the BBC is ideological.

That’s cool,  if the BBC is really a moneymaking organisation then they don’t need a sub from me do they. 

thecolourbox

Danny1969 said:

vasselmeyer said:

Danny1969 said:

Kittyfrisk said:

Can someone start a petition for a Royal Family by subscription so that I don’t have to pay? I never use them.

I think the Royal Family actually bring more money into the pot then they consume, so we probably pay a tiny bit less tax as a result. So they get a pass from me
I don't think the BBC quite manage to do this 

You are mistaken. A Deloitte study in 2011 on the economic impact of the BBC showed that for every £1 spent on the license fee, the UK economy gained £2 in revenue. That's significant money and the only reason for killing the BBC is ideological.

That’s cool,  if the BBC is really a moneymaking organisation then they don’t need a sub from me do they. 

So presumably can the Royal Family do without your sub as well 

I suspect a lot of this Tory posturing against the BBC is mostly just trying to keep Murdoch on side. If he keeps the Murdoch press on his side then he keeps a lot of the media consuming public also on his side. Clearly the media would have known about these "work events" before now, they tell us these things when they want us to know them and to suit their own aims. One little suggestion from Murdoch of a good way to deflect the attention away from the parties issue and bam, who'd have thought it

darthed1981

UnclePsychosis said:

What, exactly, do the "Conservatives" want to conserve? Because it certainly isn't any kind of British cultural values or our position as a worldwide cultural powerhouse. The fact they're willing to throw the BBC under the bus because they don't like being asked an embarrassing question once every few months is just the latest in the pathetic depths they're prepared to sink to. 

There's a reason why all these interesting documentaries about bands that we all love are on BBC and not on Netflix. Same reason why all the good quality educational TV is on cbeebies and not on ITV. Same reason John Peel was on the beeb. Same reason Gaelic and Welsh language programming isn't on Sky. Or why I can listen to coverage of lower league Scottish football live on iplayer but not on commercial radio. It's not commercially viable, but that doesn't make it not worthwhile. 

You can tell the kind of people who can only conceive of value in monetary terms because they're often the same people who complain that our national broadcaster doesn't provide any. 

Honestly, anyone complaining about the BBC should be forced to go and watch Spanish or Italian or even US broadcasting for a month just to see exactly what they're asking for. I'm honestly astounded that so many of us are so short sighted as to be prepared to throw all that away for 45p a week or whatever it costs. 

Spot on.

Britain was and is desperately hanging onto the last threads of a status of a "soft power superpower" our cultural reach, our diplomacy, the commonwealth, and even, yes, goodwill hanging over from WW2, made us on some measures second only to the USA in global influence.  

Part of the underpinning of this is organisations that are beacons to the world, like the NHS and the BBC - especially the Beeb as our shows are consumed globally, they are world leaders in engineering standards, and they supply the world service, everywhere, for free.

The current desire to kill it all in service of the "free market", firstly with Brexit, then the "hostile environment", the widespread destruction of our grass roots arts venues, the destruction of local arts funding, creative projects, and now a genuine attempt to wipe out the BBC.

There is a hardcore of people in the UK, independently wealthy Conservatives, the billionaires who own the papers, and the zealots, who want Britain to be a paradise of the free market, low regulation, low employment protections, free to be as greedy as they like.  Britain becomes a shit version of America.

All that is stopping it is that the Tories know they owe their majority almost entirely to the "red wall" seats which mysteriously, through a mixture of Corbyn-hatred and a desire for Brexit, suddenly turned blue.  The people in these seats want to see the North regenerated, investment in the NHS and public services, and curbs on the rich.  Boris has been smart enough to see this and presided over some fairly lefty economic policies... will Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss etc. be as wise?

chillidoggy

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

it but still demanding that the FB came round and sorted it out.

but if they didnt,   Ron Wood

Am I too young to get that?

no just too stupid       LOL   

Ron Wood, The Move,  Fire brigade 

Karma.

guitargeek62

Jalapeno said:

guitargeek62 said:

Jalapeno said:

Licence payments are down 750k/yr, it's unsustainable - something else needed.

That seems surprisingly low

Down BY .....

I read it as a £ value, presumably you meant the number of licences sold then?

I've not had one for the best part of ~10 years now, I've been solely watching on-demand content for that long, and nothing from iPlayer since they amended the t&c's to cover that too (~'14?)

Stratavarious

There was a reason schools taught 1984 as a text

bertie

chillidoggy said:

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

it but still demanding that the FB came round and sorted it out.

but if they didnt,   Ron Wood

Am I too young to get that?

no just too stupid       LOL   

Ron Wood, The Move,  Fire brigade 

Karma.

sorry @fretmeister ;

just realised,  can I give myself a big



off for a lie down,  see you in a month  

bertie

Kittyfrisk said:

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

bertie said:

fretmeister said:

it but still demanding that the FB came round and sorted it out.

but if they didnt,   Ron Wood

Am I too young to get that?

no just too stupid       LOL   

Ron Wood, The Move,  Fire brigade 

Or even ROY Wood 

you know that thread about using the wrong word................ in the wrong place............. well  THAT  !!

LOL

Jfingers

Stratavarious said:

There was a reason schools taught 1984 as a text

I read that for English. I bought a T shirt with the original film poster on it at Camden market in the late 80's.

I got a B. I've read it 4 times and recently recommended it to my Daughter.

ANOK4U2...

How very Crass.

Smellyfingers

I used to work for the BBC, and though it is wonderful in many ways  I think there is a contradiction at it's heart.

That is: the people who are forced to fund it don't get to say who runs it. Instead the gift of the chairman's job is in the Prime minister's hands, when the Beeb is supposed to be independent from government.

I think if they can't square that circle, then basically it's gone.

darthed1981

Smellyfingers said:

I used to work for the BBC, and though it is wonderful in many ways  I think there is a contradiction at it's heart.

That is: the people who are forced to fund it don't get to say who runs it. Instead the gift of the chairman's job is in the Prime minister's hands, when the Beeb is supposed to be independent from government.

I think if they can't square that circle, then basically it's gone.

Isn't the real power over content in the hands of the DG who is appointed by the BBC "board"?

There is definitely an issue with the ability of the government to bully the BBC though, agree there.

Unfortunately the knock on effects of budget cuts are being felt already, I've heard from some people I know who sell to the BBC that at BBC news the cuts have been brutal.

monquixote

darthed1981 said:

Smellyfingers said:

I used to work for the BBC, and though it is wonderful in many ways  I think there is a contradiction at it's heart.

That is: the people who are forced to fund it don't get to say who runs it. Instead the gift of the chairman's job is in the Prime minister's hands, when the Beeb is supposed to be independent from government.

I think if they can't square that circle, then basically it's gone.

Isn't the real power over content in the hands of the DG who is appointed by the BBC "board"?

There is definitely an issue with the ability of the government to bully the BBC though, agree there.

Unfortunately the knock on effects of budget cuts are being felt already, I've heard from some people I know who sell to the BBC that at BBC news the cuts have been brutal.

I think when the Daily Mail trumpet that the "Fat cats at the BBC" have had their budgets slashed. People don't always realise what that means. The BBC don't make profits and what they pay people is governed largely by what staff could get by moving to ITV, or Sky so it basically means programming gets cut so you get less content, or less high budget content and more "homes under the hammer" cheap crap.

Hurling_Fruitmig

Smellyfingers said:

I used to work for the BBC, and though it is wonderful in many ways  I think there is a contradiction at it's heart.

That is: the people who are forced to fund it don't get to say who runs it. Instead the gift of the chairman's job is in the Prime minister's hands, when the Beeb is supposed to be independent from government.

I think if they can't square that circle, then basically it's gone.

And yet the government (almost every government in my ifetime in fact) seems to think the BBC is somehow agin it. They're obviously picking the wrong impartial placemen.

Smellyfingers

Hurling_Fruitmig said:

Smellyfingers said:

I used to work for the BBC, and though it is wonderful in many ways  I think there is a contradiction at it's heart.

That is: the people who are forced to fund it don't get to say who runs it. Instead the gift of the chairman's job is in the Prime minister's hands, when the Beeb is supposed to be independent from government.

I think if they can't square that circle, then basically it's gone.

And yet the government (almost every government in my ifetime in fact) seems to think the BBC is somehow agin it. They're obviously picking the wrong impartial placemen.

That maybe what they want the public to believe(that there is a lot of tension).

Whilst it is true that traditionally a Liberal minded metropolitan elite has predominated, I find the fact that both the DG and Chairman are members or ex members of the Conservative party somewhat disturbing.

I also deeply resent the fact that as an involuntary funder of the BBC, this mysterious(even to BBC staff) 'board' get to choose who runs it, instead of me and the many others who pay the licence fee.