I still think the major point is that if you use even a small part of the bbc's output, then it is probably worth the fee but those that don't wish to, shouldn't be forced to pay.
I barely watch it because they have very little that appeals. Everything seems very dumbed down nowadays and it would be nice to watch a nature programme without getting a lecture (I understand the world is in crisis, we should all do our bit but those that know already care and don't need constant bombardment during every programme that should make people appreciate nature more). If there were less repeats and more engaging viewing I would watch and then the fee doesn't seem that much. My brother never watches it but still has to pay and my parents really get value for money with the amount they watch.
It seems odd to me that they appear scared of changing the funding model. If they were truely as good as they seem to make out then it should be easy to get people to pay for it. They could open themselves up to far wider viewers.
The trouble is, popularity isn't necessarily the way to quality. Some of the most popular films and programmes are, honestly, lowest common denominator stuff. But more than that, the BBC charter requires that they inform and educate as well as entertain. They are unlikely to attract a mass audience who would pay enough to provide the best the BBC can produce. The reason we already have so many repeats and rubbish programmes now is that their funding has been cut.
@Hostafan1, where do you think the money comes from to make radio programmes? They are NOT free, it's just that we pay for them via the license fee.
As I've said before, I'm more than happy to pay the license fee. There are plenty who complain about paying it who still listen to BBC radio. Hyporcrites, freeloaders and parasites.
The BBC is a public service provider. As part of their charter they have to provide various services (all detailed here - https://www.bbc.com/academy-guides/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-the-bbc/). The licence fee then effectively subsidises all those services - from kids, education (I recall at junior school watching the daytime BBC tv broadcasts in education)..etc. They then have to provide via broadcast as well as then trying to compete with streaming service providers who don't have such restrictions. And all that totally ignore the national and local radio that is also then provided as well as full news/sports etc web pages.
If then the funding is cut, then some of those services suffer. How can the BBC compete with the other streaming services, when they don't have the same handcuffs in what they have to produce and how they have to provide it?
IF the BBC just becomes another streaming service of entertainment/sport, I totally agree that the BBC isn't worth the funding - but that isn't and never has been what the BBC is about.
It's odd - when I was a kid there was always talk about how good the American model was - 'n' hundred channels compared to our three or four. But what about the content? And that's now true here. With Sky I had access to loads of channels, all showing dross, with the odd gem. Now there's a plethora of streaming services - all with that same model - the odd gem amongst dross. But people now like change and instant access. If they don't have new, now they fear they're missing out, so pay more and more to have the latest. More streaming services on more platforms is the way. Meta will have it's own TV in virtual reality I guarantee if Microsoft doesn't beat them to it.
We don't have a TV. There's no signal here. All our TV viewing is on the internet which in effect makes the BBC a subscription we chose to pay for if we chose not to watch the iplayer, we wouldn't be obliged to pay the license fee. You do have that option. If they hassle you to pay the license for a property that's empty, you can ignore it. If they turn up on the doorstep and the house is obviously empty, they'll just go away again. If the licence fee is abandoned, then the BBC will probably go online only as the only way to be able to charge subscriptions, or if the licence is cut right down, there will be an increasing divergence between what's on the iplayer and what's broadcast free to air
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
@Hostafan1 maybe people could pay a small fee to listen to the radio only? I prefer other radio stations but I expect people would subscribe if they were keen on BBC radio. People now do want more choice but that’s not a bad thing. I personally would not choose to watch bbc so I wouldn’t pay. Seems like others would.
To be frank, I have found reading this thread quite dispiriting.
I had no idea that seemingly so many people find such limited value from the range of BBC output. Daily I am informed, entertained and educated. The news broadcasts, the current affairs, investigative journalism, consumer programmes, broadcasting from Parliament, the breadth of radio shows, the sport, cookery, dancing, art, antiques, the comedy, drama, online journalism, local news, election results, children’s TV, Bitesize, catch up … and more, and for just £3 a week.
Particularly telling are the observations from people who live, or lived, abroad and who say how favourably the BBC compares to other broadcasters, and in what high regard it is held. Certainly that is my experience of the tosh I have watched while holidaying overseas.
I fear we are on the cusp of having one of our great institutions dismantled. Without protection it will be pared back and we will suffer. First to go will be idiosyncratic stuff and programmes with minority appeal (including gardening), radio shows might operate for limited hours, there’ll be more repeats and more low value imports. This, from my point of view, is very depressing.
I also find puzzling other people’s irritations. When there is a budget of £5 billion, restricting BBC journalists’ opportunities to travel to world news hotspots is going to make an incredibly small saving. It might save us 2p a year. Maybe there is financial waste and financial mismanagement in the institution but, given how much the BBC budget has been cut recently, I imagine prudence is observed. Paying salaries above the National average wage, I worked out, costs me about 30p a week. Is it worth getting stressed over how much is paid to the Director General, Tess Daly, Gary Lineker, Vanessa Feltz et al for such a trifling sum?
I am also baffled by reports of biased opinions. We get straight, factual reporting but I like to hear an analysis of what it means and what might happen next. I know I can get this from Frank down the pub but he knows nothing yet will nonetheless blast your ears with doses of vacuity. My preference is to hear the opinion of someone who is in daily off the record conversations with politicians and decision makers, who reads Guido Fawkes, who takes seriously the duty to hold to account those in power. I want a BBC not scared to rattle the bones of the government of the day. When a Conservative government is challenged the BBC is accused of left wing bias, when Labour is in power the opposite happens. I can live with that. Indeed I applaud it.
Having said all this, I am not against looking at other funding models and giving people who really don’t want to access the BBC’s services - beyond my comprehension though that is - the opportunity to opt out. I just do not want the budget to be reduced which will lead to a diminution in quality and range. When that happens, more will opt out, more dumbing down will happen and we’ll slither sadly downwards to lower standards. As somebody said earlier, we pay for schools even though we might have no school age children, we pay for others to get free prescriptions, we top up the incomes of the lowly paid and unwaged when we are comfortably off. In my view the BBC falls in this category - something of such great benefit to the nation as a whole that all who want to watch TV should be asked to pay.
I couldn’t agree more @BenCotto … absolutely spot on!
The only reason I have ticked Other is because through my work with Social Services I met with families who felt they absolutely could not afford a TV licence … it seems wrong to me that they and their children should live in fear of the Detector Van. I think there should be an income level below which you are exempt from paying. It would take some sorting out but perhaps it could be linked to the Universal Credit system … 🤔
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Posts
I barely watch it because they have very little that appeals. Everything seems very dumbed down nowadays and it would be nice to watch a nature programme without getting a lecture (I understand the world is in crisis, we should all do our bit but those that know already care and don't need constant bombardment during every programme that should make people appreciate nature more). If there were less repeats and more engaging viewing I would watch and then the fee doesn't seem that much. My brother never watches it but still has to pay and my parents really get value for money with the amount they watch.
It seems odd to me that they appear scared of changing the funding model. If they were truely as good as they seem to make out then it should be easy to get people to pay for it. They could open themselves up to far wider viewers.
But more than that, the BBC charter requires that they inform and educate as well as entertain.
They are unlikely to attract a mass audience who would pay enough to provide the best the BBC can produce. The reason we already have so many repeats and rubbish programmes now is that their funding has been cut.
There are plenty who complain about paying it who still listen to BBC radio.
Hyporcrites, freeloaders and parasites.
If the licence fee is abandoned, then the BBC will probably go online only as the only way to be able to charge subscriptions, or if the licence is cut right down, there will be an increasing divergence between what's on the iplayer and what's broadcast free to air
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I had no idea that seemingly so many people find such limited value from the range of BBC output. Daily I am informed, entertained and educated. The news broadcasts, the current affairs, investigative journalism, consumer programmes, broadcasting from Parliament, the breadth of radio shows, the sport, cookery, dancing, art, antiques, the comedy, drama, online journalism, local news, election results, children’s TV, Bitesize, catch up … and more, and for just £3 a week.
I also find puzzling other people’s irritations. When there is a budget of £5 billion, restricting BBC journalists’ opportunities to travel to world news hotspots is going to make an incredibly small saving. It might save us 2p a year. Maybe there is financial waste and financial mismanagement in the institution but, given how much the BBC budget has been cut recently, I imagine prudence is observed. Paying salaries above the National average wage, I worked out, costs me about 30p a week. Is it worth getting stressed over how much is paid to the Director General, Tess Daly, Gary Lineker, Vanessa Feltz et al for such a trifling sum?
Having said all this, I am not against looking at other funding models and giving people who really don’t want to access the BBC’s services - beyond my comprehension though that is - the opportunity to opt out. I just do not want the budget to be reduced which will lead to a diminution in quality and range. When that happens, more will opt out, more dumbing down will happen and we’ll slither sadly downwards to lower standards. As somebody said earlier, we pay for schools even though we might have no school age children, we pay for others to get free prescriptions, we top up the incomes of the lowly paid and unwaged when we are comfortably off. In my view the BBC falls in this category - something of such great benefit to the nation as a whole that all who want to watch TV should be asked to pay.
… absolutely spot on!
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.