5,597 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 16, 2022 18:31:05 GMT
I don't drive or have children. By a lot of people's logic about the licence fee I should be able to opt out of tax that pays for schools and roads. Not quite because the ambulance coming to you uses your road and other roads and the paramedic was educated in the school up the road..as it were. You benefit form general taxation.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jan 16, 2022 19:07:35 GMT
I don't drive or have children. By a lot of people's logic about the licence fee I should be able to opt out of tax that pays for schools and roads. Not quite because the ambulance coming to you uses your road and other roads and the paramedic was educated in the school up the road..as it were. You benefit form general taxation. I would say that one of the benefits of general taxation is that we can have a public service broadcaster that isn't beholden to the demands of advertisers and the whims of the audience. We already have loads of channels that are required to follow the dictates of the market, unable to give shows a chance to find their audience and unable to attempt anything that might threaten their income. Central government spends a million pounds every 38 seconds. What's wrong with using a tiny fraction of that to support non-commercial television and a host of other services? We don't need another ITV.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 16, 2022 19:31:28 GMT
I don't drive or have children. By a lot of people's logic about the licence fee I should be able to opt out of tax that pays for schools and roads. What are you paying road tax for if you don't drive
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 16, 2022 19:31:47 GMT
No surprise this news comes as Boris Johnson is up the do da this week, well hello that news about illicit parties was broken by ITV News.
This news coming from Nadine Dorries who herself buggered off to Australia to play celebrity, when she should have been in parliament.
All television and entertainment in general has to be paid for somehow, what is the alternative Netflix? Apple TV? Murdoch’s Sky TV? The fact that everyone has to pay a licence is what makes it very good value, if it was subscription based it would cost probably £600-£700 a year.
Also the BBC is optional, you are not forced to have it, you just cannot own a television.
|
|
1,877 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jan 16, 2022 19:36:23 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke.
|
|
2,974 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 16, 2022 19:40:12 GMT
Also the BBC is optional, you are not forced to have it, you just cannot own a television. That's quite a 'just' there!
|
|
1,656 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Jan 16, 2022 19:42:54 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. That was the government who took that away, not the BBC.
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jan 16, 2022 19:55:34 GMT
The licence fee is effectively an outdated, regressive tax with the heaviest burden on those with the lowest incomes, everyone being basically forced to pay (or face being harassed by licence enforcement and eventually criminal proceedings) regardless of whether they use any BBC services or not. I'd prefer it if the licence fee was rolled into other taxation instead of being separate, so it was income-adjusted in the same way as everything else. The current approach is certainly outdated, but that doesn't mean the BBC needs to become yet another purely commercial operation fighting for every penny.
This is more like it! A tax that is paid based on income rather than an annual service charge.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 16, 2022 20:30:47 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. The Government made the pensioners pay full whack, not the BBC. The other thing to note is that people saying the BBC is a luxury are wrong. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the importance of television. Of access to news. To those who live alone, the BBC might be their only connection with the outside world. It's 4p a day. For everything. If that's not worth fighting to save I don't know what is.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 16, 2022 20:33:43 GMT
Mock the Week is one of the best shows on television this week, I so miss it this week.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 16, 2022 21:17:47 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. I'd hardly call Lineker a chancer. I'm not a fan personally, but he's earnt his rep and is paid a lot for a very good reason; have you tried doing that job? I have the upmost respect for anyone who can talk and keep talking coherently whilst being spoken to by different people in their ear about a different subjects; whilst navigating the topic with guests on set. To do it effectively and seamlessly is an absolute talent. People bemoan Presenters and the wages some of them command, but if you've ever seen a bad Presenter live you'd recognised the insane abilities of the good ones. Also I'd contest the whole 'not made anything of worth in decades', but it'd take me all night.
|
|
2,545 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 16, 2022 21:23:12 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial.
I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 16, 2022 21:29:01 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial. I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption. And that's before the practicalities of figuring out how you would stop people tuning into Radio 4 on the radio in their car.
|
|
|
Post by jamie2c on Jan 16, 2022 21:35:44 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial. I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption. And that's before the practicalities of figuring out how you would stop people tuning into Radio 4 on the radio in their car. That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 16, 2022 21:44:51 GMT
There's a simple technical problem around this which no one seems to be talking about today. Digital Terrestrial has no mechanism for checking subscription status. If you want to close off BBC output to people who are only subscribers, a whole system of authorisation needs to be built. Not everyone has strong enough broadband to stream services, so the question is how you close BBC services to those people (the vast majority of people) who get TV through their aerial. I think that jeopardising the funding of the BBC is dreadful, but setting that aside, I haven't seen anyone actually say how this might work practically with our current transmission system. Closing digital terrestrial and forcing everyone to get new set-top boxes or streaming boxes is going to cost a huge amount of money and disruption. Fairly simple. BBC has been moving to focus on it's online platform over the last few years. Terrestrial will filter away as the growth and appetite for 'On Demand' continues to rise exponentially. Ofcom are always looking for more ways to sell more bandwidth to telecoms so by reducing the channels transmitted on TV/Radio and BBC moving to primarily online delivery, everybody (in the business) wins. My prediction is you'll get terrestrial BBC1/2 and probably 3 radio stations on the air waves. Everything else will be online which requires a login with your BBC ID (already a thing), which will need an active subscription for access to all content. iPlayer (with BBC1/2/3/4 + on demand), BBC News* website, BBC Sport website, BBC Sounds, CBBC, all of it will require you to login. Every TV made in the last decade is 'smart' and can download apps like iPlayer, HDMI dongles like Fire sticks/Chromecast give you access to all the apps too. Fundamentally BBC will have to scale back and offer less as well to navigate this. It feels a bit like the start of that weird period between where CDs were the norm and when people in their masses started adopting platforms like Spotify etc. There will be resistance but it'll happen. *News may well stay free to access or at least throttled where a login gives you the full article etc like most outlets currently.
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Jan 16, 2022 22:23:25 GMT
Good riddance to the BBC: they haven’t made anything of any worth in decades and insisted on pensioners paying the full whack while chancers like Gary Lineker are paid an obscene amount. I have no nostalgia for crap like Eastenders and Doctor Who which they have ground into dust in their determination to be woke. The Government made the pensioners pay full whack, not the BBC. The other thing to note is that people saying the BBC is a luxury are wrong. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the importance of television. Of access to news. To those who live alone, the BBC might be their only connection with the outside world. It's 4p a day. For everything. If that's not worth fighting to save I don't know what is. You're out by a factor of 10, by the way.
|
|
2,545 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 16, 2022 23:28:15 GMT
That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football. I'd say it's the Government's problem when they tell pensioners that they have to get broadband, start paying a new subscription and buy new set-top boxes to watch Call The Midwife or Bargain Hunt. If the BBC goes subscription, that closes down the whole Freeview network (which they maintain), so that stops free viewing of ITV, Channels 4 and 5 through an aerial. og suggested that "BBC1, BBC2 and 3 radio stations" will remain on the airwaves - well, that's what most people watch and listen to, so the subscription revenue from BBC Alba, S4C, Radio Cymru and the Asian Network will be tiny. So both the minority interests which only the BBC serves will vanish, and they won't have the revenue to support their existing output from that subscription revenue. Suggesting that News "may well stay free to access" is a pipe-dream when the BBC's income is going to collapse - BBC News is not going to exist in a way that can sustain a 24-hour news channel or regional broadcasts. Anyway, it's clear that the culture battle lines are already drawn and I know which side I'm on, all I'm saying is that there are a whole host of technical issues that make this far from straightforward. I have a Smart TV and all the streaming services, but sometimes on message boards like this, people underestimate the friction that might be caused to some of the more vulnerable members of our society, whom Nadine Dorries claims to be protecting (having removed their free access to BBC services)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2022 23:34:13 GMT
I don’t think it will happen.
The commercial TV industry never really recovered from the 2007/08 recession. All anyone wants to make is a cheap and cheerful TV show, and that is why we have had an absolute onslaught of reality TV over the years from every commercial TV station.
If the BBC must move towards a commercial arrangement with advertisements, it isn’t going to access an untapped revenue stream - it’s going to move into an overcrowded market. Does anyone really think ITV would ever be happy about that?
The alternatives aren’t really viable and I think that is where the government is going to come unstuck with this. Asking it to move to a subscription model is all very well but it’s completely impractical - the iPlayer remains first and foremost a catch-up service, and you can’t expect the BBC to use licence fee funds to create content that will only be shown behind a paywall (which is the only way to do it, otherwise where does the BBC get money to create content for a subscription service?)
Whatever the way forward, the licence fee isn’t going anywhere - how the BBC is funded might change, but whatever happens will need to be done gradually over many years.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 17, 2022 8:47:02 GMT
That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football. I'd say it's the Government's problem when they tell pensioners that they have to get broadband, start paying a new subscription and buy new set-top boxes to watch Call The Midwife or Bargain Hunt. If the BBC goes subscription, that closes down the whole Freeview network (which they maintain), so that stops free viewing of ITV, Channels 4 and 5 through an aerial. og suggested that "BBC1, BBC2 and 3 radio stations" will remain on the airwaves - well, that's what most people watch and listen to, so the subscription revenue from BBC Alba, S4C, Radio Cymru and the Asian Network will be tiny. So both the minority interests which only the BBC serves will vanish, and they won't have the revenue to support their existing output from that subscription revenue. Suggesting that News "may well stay free to access" is a pipe-dream when the BBC's income is going to collapse - BBC News is not going to exist in a way that can sustain a 24-hour news channel or regional broadcasts.Anyway, it's clear that the culture battle lines are already drawn and I know which side I'm on, all I'm saying is that there are a whole host of technical issues that make this far from straightforward. I have a Smart TV and all the streaming services, but sometimes on message boards like this, people underestimate the friction that might be caused to some of the more vulnerable members of our society, whom Nadine Dorries claims to be protecting (having removed their free access to BBC services) I think you're forgetting about the global reach and influence of BBC World news. Outside of the UK BBC is very widely respected and has alot of weight. For sure the regional aspects will crumble, which isn't necessarily a bad thing imo. Red Button may well cease output also. Sport for example will be able to adapt quite easily. Full event/fixture coverage will go behind the subscription, select highlights on terrestrial. Where the difficulty arises is contracts like FA Cup which require a proportion to be available on free to air. Conversely it has the potential to put the BBC back in the game to bid for more coverage like Olympics. In terms of being in the interests of the more 'vulnerable members of society', in a decades time when this is all implemented, they'll be a generation older, most moved on. How many people watch on a black and white CRT now?
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Jan 17, 2022 8:48:49 GMT
I don’t think it will happen. The commercial TV industry never really recovered from the 2007/08 recession. All anyone wants to make is a cheap and cheerful TV show, and that is why we have had an absolute onslaught of reality TV over the years from every commercial TV station. If the BBC must move towards a commercial arrangement with advertisements, it isn’t going to access an untapped revenue stream - it’s going to move into an overcrowded market. Does anyone really think ITV would ever be happy about that? The alternatives aren’t really viable and I think that is where the government is going to come unstuck with this. Asking it to move to a subscription model is all very well but it’s completely impractical - the iPlayer remains first and foremost a catch-up service, and you can’t expect the BBC to use licence fee funds to create content that will only be shown behind a paywall (which is the only way to do it, otherwise where does the BBC get money to create content for a subscription service?) Whatever the way forward, the licence fee isn’t going anywhere - how the BBC is funded might change, but whatever happens will need to be done gradually over many years. All of which might be relevant if we had a government which cared about practicality or reality.
|
|
894 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 17, 2022 8:49:38 GMT
I think there's probably a discussion to be had about how we fund the BBC going forward given the changes in the broadcast industry. Certainly from what I've seen online there's a lot of ignorance around how we watch TV still and the comparison to what we pay for Netflix is unhelpful given how fundamentally different they are as an organisation.
However this government just doesn't work like that. If Johnson had truly been interested in sensible reform then he wouldn't have made a politician as moronic and incapable of understanding her brief as Nadine Dorries culture secretary. And the announcement of getting rid of the license fee, without any indication that they had come up with any plans as to how to replace it, just when Johnson needed the distraction shows how little regard they have for any of our great public institutions.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 17, 2022 9:19:01 GMT
If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the importance of television. Of access to news. To those who live alone, the BBC might be their only connection with the outside world. It's 4p a day. For everything. If that's not worth fighting to save I don't know what is. So people who live alone don't have access to ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky News, NetFlix or commercial radio or the internet ? Why not ? Also, how come you are only paying 4p a day ? The rest of us are either paying 43p a day or are facing a criminal prosecution.
|
|
2,974 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 17, 2022 9:38:30 GMT
moronic and incapable of understanding her brief as Nadine Dorries culture secretary. She's risen to the post of cabinet minister from a poor working class Liverpool background, in a party that has a reputation for despising all of that. I dislike her views but I don't think she's moronic.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 17, 2022 9:57:56 GMT
moronic and incapable of understanding her brief as Nadine Dorries culture secretary. She's risen to the post of cabinet minister from a poor working class Liverpool background, in a party that has a reputation for despising all of that. I dislike her views but I don't think she's moronic. Agree. It's the type of personal abuse Angela Rayner suffers from the opposite side. Neither is acceptable and reflects badly on those (usually men it seems to me) who comment in that way.
|
|
721 posts
|
Post by hulmeman on Jan 17, 2022 11:27:04 GMT
I suspect the remarks made by Dorries are intended as a warning shot across the bows of the BBC because of Johnson's current problems. It is also a useful distraction. They also play well to the tory faithful who read the smail on Sunday where I believe she made her comments.
|
|
2,974 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 17, 2022 11:36:54 GMT
Yes, I think the timing is very clear. I do wonder what the BBC is playing at at the moment though. It is showing a surprising lack of curiosity about where the stories are coming from - for example they had the Telegraph journalist who broke the story on, but didn't ask him the source. Is it Cummings' revenge? I'm sure a Paxman would have asked him that. And why now? Personally I think it serves the anti-control-measures faction very well indeed, and those who want Johnson gone so they can refresh the leadership in time for a general election. The BBC don't seem to care about this and are just going with it because, I think, they're still sore about Brexit and see it as revenge and can't see beyond that. There are other news stories going by the wayside as they focus on these so-called 'industrial scale' parties ('an atrocity!' one pundit claimed. Really? Come on!). Anyway, the BBC are dancing to the leakers' tune, the Tories will either get a shiny new leader and/or respond with a punishment beating for the BBC and safety controls will be lifted so more vulnerable people, like all the unvisited mums in care homes we keep hearing about, may die.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 17, 2022 11:40:26 GMT
And of course, all of this hinges on the Tories still being in power in 2027...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 12:31:09 GMT
I think, they're still sore about Brexit … or you know, the Tories are just a bunch of career politicians hoping they can lie and manipulate their way through life. Whilst I accept the BBC isn’t as impartial as it’s designed to be (though I do think they try), the Tories make is so ridiculously easy for people to get annoyed with them. But Brexit cannot be blamed for everything. Too much time has passed and grudges take up far too much energy to uphold.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 12:31:56 GMT
And of course, all of this hinges on the Tories still being in power in 2027... They will be - we don’t have a viable alternative and that’s the saddest part about British politics right now.
|
|
869 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jan 17, 2022 12:54:36 GMT
Maybe now the BBC knows what the government has in store for them the newsroom might finally grow a pair and start telling us what's really happening and stop giving government ministers such an easy time. There's nothing to be gained by merely repeating their propaganda.
|
|