Another reason to vote Tory

[starfighter]

I think the way it is now works well, we have the BBC and we still have a decent industy with ITV, C4, C5, Sky and Virgin.

10 quid isn't much.

I love American TV, but without the BBC I don't think it would take long for all our TV to become American or cheap gameshows/reality TV type stuff or American because it would be the cheapest option so unless you paid 30 + pounds a month to sky that is what you will have on TV suppoted by advertisements alone.

And the BBC is great for other things such as FreeSat and FreeView? Arn't these wservices part of the BBC to an extent. It has taken years to get a proper Satelite platform in the UK not run by NewsCorp.

 

[KNiVES]

That's the best thing about the BBC - it caters for everyone. Loads of people enjoy soap operas.

Exactly, so you could say even the negatives can be a positive for some

(personally I can't bloody stand it when a marriage breaks down at Christmas in Eastenders for the upteenth time )

 

[RDM]

But as I'm sure you are well aware with any public service you pay for some parts you don't use, that's in the nature of it.

But how much would the "public service" part of the BBC actually cost? A lot of the content is general entertainment which can be got from other channels or would be picked up by other channels if the BBC didn't exist.

Many of the shows that you do get via freeview or basic satellite channels have been initially on the BBC so whether you watch them there or at first instance isn't hugely important when the investment in them has been made already.

Considering that an awful lot of the better shows are already made by outside companies then they would probably still exist without the BBC. Some of the shows made by the BBC would probably also be picked up by outside production companies. But again how much of this entertainment is actually a public service? So why should people be forced to pay for it?

 

[Stretch]

Sorry but there's a hell of a lot of things the BBC does that makes it absolutely and completely worth the £142 fee, if not more. I for one have no problem with paying it. The BBC television channels do have a load of rubbish (soaps anyone?) but the news channels, the news website, the documentaries, Top Gear, etc etc go out of their element to make up for it.

When you watch Attenborough's chance encounter with a rare lizard that only lives in a cave 1km under the surface of the Earth, or you see Clarkson trying to drive a rudimentary car at 5mph while it's filling up with smoke, it is nearly impossible to quibble about the fee.

I don't think anyone has a problem with people wanting to pay. The issue is with those that don't.

 

[drunkenmaster]

People really are well, daft, its pretty simple, let the BBC do what every other channel on the planet does, generate its own revenue rather than have us subsidise it.

If we stop paying for the bbc, they have more adverts, rather than the long ass BBC adverts telling us whats on, a few utter crap shows lose a few minutes here and there and no one gives a crap. It would actually increase the number of jobs in the uk, as more advertising was needed, and increase the income into the UK as companies from outside the UK pay more in advertising to the BBC. The BBC, when being run for profit, can pay for who it likes, actually compete in the proper market for proper tv. Sorry but its high budget drama's and series are awful in quality compared to US shows still. Doctor Who, and other short series are just so woefully bad its a joke.

The bbc website you think will suddenly stop doing news if they have to pay for it themselves, bull. Not to mention their site is horrible these days for the news, its a shambles that puts out largely news reports posted everywhere else on the net, and no particularly deep reporting themselves.

There is NOTHING the BBC would do differently with adverts as opposed to being subsidised, they already have a advertising/revenue department as they run add's in other media and markets, just not their tv channels basically.

Every single thing they do is capable of making money, just like all other channels, there is entirely no reason to subsidise them at all. Infact, considering more people watch the BBC than our other english channels they can likely INCREASE the money they make in profits, over what they receive in subsidise and could likely increase spending on shows.

Right now they have to basically operate within a certain budget that can't really increase, if they spend more on a show thats far higher quality, it can't generate more money by higher ad sales. They can't make a "Friends" type hit and change 10 times more in ad sales, they can't spend as much on shows as if they had a bigger budget, so their ability to make syndicateable shows, drama's, comedy's or anything else are limited.

Why has no one even stopped to think that, being a successful TV production company, they couldn't be successful with the limits removed, make more money, make better tv and create more jobs.


For me, they make nothing I like watching, their fluffy entertainment like strictly, is embarrasing. Their news show has gone from world leading news to daily chat show with pathetically weak interviews with none of the hard questions asked. Their comedy, is dead, their drama's are crap. Their documentaries on certain subjects done with the right people are often very good. Those shows do get sold around the world and make a lot of money, its those shows that would get increases in budgets and bring in even more money for the BBC if it wasn't a tax payer based company.

 

[Werewolf]

Considering that an awful lot of the better shows are already made by outside companies then they would probably still exist without the BBC. Some of the shows made by the BBC would probably also be picked up by outside production companies. But again how much of this entertainment is actually a public service? So why should people be forced to pay for it?

The shows made by outside companies for the BBC are often funded by the BBC - without the BBC they would have needed someone else to fund them initially or commission them.
Without the BBC to fund, or partially fund them they simply would not have been made.
A lot of the shows in question were originally offered to commercial companies prior to production, who turned them down (Life on Mars was, from memory touted to ITV at least who turned it down, the BBC gave it a go and it got made), and entire genres have died out on the commercial channels until the BBC commissioned something that was a success (thus proving it could work, quickly followed by the commercial channels making their own shows in the same style).

The BBC via it's WW commercial arm have also saved several ITV shows, I believe the most recent example of such was Primeval which was going to be canned by ITV due to the cost of funding it, BBCWW did a deal which meant they got DVD distribution rights in return for partially funding it.

It's also worth noting that entertainment for all (rather than just those that the advertisers are aiming a product at), is one of the remits of the BBC, who often manage to combine it quite well with the other parts of their remit, to educate and inform.

Strictly Come Dancing for example is very entertaining, yet also much more informative than the likes of X-Factor in that it's giving many forms of dance a wide public audience for in some cases the first time in decades.
Many of the period dramas are hugely expensive to make, yet entertaining and when done seriously are very educational as the BBC can/does do a lot to make sure they are authentic, and based on books that are a big part of the culture/heritage.

 

[Biohazard]

Can you explain why I don't deserve a TV?

Go joe!

 

[Werewolf]

People really are well, daft, its pretty simple, let the BBC do what every other channel on the planet does, generate its own revenue rather than have us subsidise it.

Not every other channel on the planet does it, most countries have some form of PSB funded either by direct taxes, or indirect taxes.

If we stop paying for the bbc, they have more adverts, rather than the long ass BBC adverts telling us whats on, a few utter crap shows lose a few minutes here and there and no one gives a crap. It would actually increase the number of jobs in the uk, as more advertising was needed, and increase the income into the UK as companies from outside the UK pay more in advertising to the BBC. The BBC, when being run for profit, can pay for who it likes, actually compete in the proper market for proper tv. Sorry but its high budget drama's and series are awful in quality compared to US shows still. Doctor Who, and other short series are just so woefully bad its a joke.

They go from having a couple of minutes maximum an hour (which gives them padding for if something goes wrong/over runs/they need a news bulletin), to 15 minutes or so of advertising competing with hundreds of other channels for a slice of the pie.
It wouldn't create jobs, it would if anything lose jobs - we didn't see a major increase in the variety or quality of adverts when Sky went digital and it became feasible to have hundreds of channels, what we saw was many of the same adverts many more times, and an increase in very cheap adverts that would have employed a handful of people for a few days at most.

It would also mean that the BBC would have to compete for advertisers, which means losing anything that doesn't get a good audience of the type the advertisers want, and them going down the same road as ITV/C4/C5 - a situation that would see the quality in TV in this country drop like a stone, as none of the broadcasters would have reason to keep the standard of content at more than "just a little better" than the competition.
At the moment the BBC helps to keep a standard up, as it can afford to take a longer view than the next quarterly profit statement, or this months ratings.

 

[Sharpsilver]

I think I would generally just die inside if the BBC for whatever reason vanished of the place of the earth....because..

Where would I get my Ad-free shows, Top Gear, Spooks, Have I got News for You and Formula 1?

..

Plus the amount of shows and audiences it provides for really makes it the centre of the British Televsion Industry. It's the most premium service and is free of the corruption of American Television with it's reality shows, game shows and dire programming, packed inbetween with a stupid amount of adverts that generally make up something like 1 third of the time slot.

I admit, there are shows that are run on the BBC which I wouldn't touch with a 10ft long stick... but the benefits outweight the negatives here.. and I've got no problems with paying a fee for quality television.

I would rather destroy my television then let Murdoch try and ruin British Television by introducing dire programming, endless adverts and then on top of that, increasing his global monopoly even more.

 

[Westyfield2]

I'm all for the idea of the BBC (Top Gear, Spooks, Have I got News for You and Formula 1 etc) and am against the whole council-house full sky package innit culture.

However; Jonathan Ross , Russell Brand , BBC Asian Network , BBC 1Xtra . What absolute wastes of money.

 

[TruffleShuffle]

The BBC is a classic example of 'you dont know what you've got till its gone'. Ask Canadians or Asutrailians about their state TV, they'd beg you to return to the current BBC funding model.

Both these countries had the same funding model (a licence fee) untill some years ago when both started allowing commercialism to creep in. All that happened was more and more commercials appeared, and the quality of the shows degenerated becuase instead of being focused on creating viewing that met certain cultural criteria, they focused more and more on what drew in the biggest audiences and therefore more money from advertising.

I would ask anyone who doesnt believe in the current funding model to actually do some accademic research on the BBC, its responsibilities, and how it is funded. It might open your eyes to just how good it is.

As for the undemocratic 'tax' argument. I pay National Insurance, i dont have a say in whther i do or not, it just comes out of my pay. I havent been admitted to a hospital in my life. But i might in the future, and the same principle applies here, you dont watch the BBC you say, but i'm sure you have watched something that the BBC has been involved in or you've switched on the Radio, all sorts.

Just becasue you dont watch BBC1 or BBC2 doesnt mean you arent using the BBC.

 

[britboy4321]

The BBC is the least biased tv channel in the world.

I don't like the idea it is compulsory though. There should be a 'firmware' update you can do to your TV to disable all capability to watch BBC, and get you off the license fee. They only don't do this because they know what would happen ...

 

[Burnsy2023]

The BBC is the least biased tv channel in the world.

I don't like the idea it is compulsory though. There should be a 'firmware' update you can do to your TV to disable all capability to watch BBC, and get you off the license fee. They only don't do this because they know what would happen ...

Without the public funding, it won't be a public service and so will end up like ITV (which is crap)

 

[semi-pro waster]

But how much would the "public service" part of the BBC actually cost? A lot of the content is general entertainment which can be got from other channels or would be picked up by other channels if the BBC didn't exist.

I'm not sure on the figures but it seems that you wouldn't get one without the other, things such as the shipping forecast, BBC World Service and a variety of other programmes/services seem somewhat unlikely to be catered for as on the face of it they're not liable to generate the advertising revenue that makes them attractive and quite possibly not even viable for another broadcaster to pick up.

Considering that an awful lot of the better shows are already made by outside companies then they would probably still exist without the BBC. Some of the shows made by the BBC would probably also be picked up by outside production companies. But again how much of this entertainment is actually a public service? So why should people be forced to pay for it?

As Werewolf says the BBC has (often) a fairly significant input into these outside companies. Paying only for the services you use might seem attractive at first blush but if we look to other places which have PBS then they tend not to fare so well in the quality stakes without a central (and relatively guaranteed) form of funding as we have here - I really don't mind paying a bit more for services that I won't be using if it means that other people who do require or even just enjoy them get to keep them.

There are limits of course before we go down the path of "well why don't you pay for everything" but as a broad principle I don't miss the money for a licence fee per month and whether I get my moneys worth is something that I am quite unconcerned about.

 

[RDM]

I'm not sure on the figures but it seems that you wouldn't get one without the other, things such as the shipping forecast, BBC World Service and a variety of other programmes/services seem somewhat unlikely to be catered for as on the face of it they're not liable to generate the advertising revenue that makes them attractive and quite possibly not even viable for another broadcaster to pick up.

So fund the Public Service bit from taxation?

As Werewolf says the BBC has (often) a fairly significant input into these outside companies. Paying only for the services you use might seem attractive at first blush but if we look to other places which have PBS then they tend not to fare so well in the quality stakes without a central (and relatively guaranteed) form of funding as we have here - I really don't mind paying a bit more for services that I won't be using if it means that other people who do require or even just enjoy them get to keep them.

However it could tend to distort the market somewhat in that it could make it much harder for non public funded companies to fund decent television as their "competition" doesn't have the same economic pressures.

There are limits of course before we go down the path of "well why don't you pay for everything" but as a broad principle I don't miss the money for a licence fee per month and whether I get my moneys worth is something that I am quite unconcerned about.

The problem is though that the BBC seems to be starting to go down a route where it is producing much less of the programmes I do like and a changing editorial policy since the Ross/Brand debacle means that it is "toning down" on some of the stuff I do watch. If the BBC starts producing nothing I would watch then it is less "Do I get my money's worth?" and more "Do I get anything at all of value from this?"

 

[Barks]

Not a huge fan of the Tories but even they will do a job one billion times better than the scum that is Labour. Chimps could do a better job than Labour.

Nothing against the licensee fee.

 

[semi-pro waster]

So fund the Public Service bit from taxation?

De facto or de jure the impact is the same, what benefit do we gain by putting in a new tax (or bumping up a current one) rather than simply having the existing licence fee? Bearing in mind that the licence fee is only for those with equipment capable of receiving TV broadcasting.

However it could tend to distort the market somewhat in that it could make it much harder for non public funded companies to fund decent television as their "competition" doesn't have the same economic pressures.

It may well do and that's also an issue in pretty much anything that is government funded too. However letting it go for an uncertain potential future outcome to correct a perceived unfairness doesn't seem an entirely sensible proposition to me.

The problem is though that the BBC seems to be starting to go down a route where it is producing much less of the programmes I do like and a changing editorial policy since the Ross/Brand debacle means that it is "toning down" on some of the stuff I do watch. If the BBC starts producing nothing I would watch then it is less "Do I get my money's worth?" and more "Do I get anything at all of value from this?"

If you get nothing of value from the BBC then I'd be somewhat surprised, directly or indirectly it has enormous influence over the broadcasting industry in this country. However if you say that you don't get anything much worthwhile from the BBC I've got to believe you - have you thought about detuning your TV and declining to pay the licence fee? If all you like or want is on DVD then it seems a bit pointless paying the licence for you.

 

[cu3ed]

Not a huge fan of the Tories but even they will do a job one billion times better than the scum that is Labour. Chimps could do a better job than Labour.

Nothing against the licensee fee.

If the only reason they get in power agin is to show how much they fcuked up this country last time they had power to prove a point...id be willing to let them have the top jobs....do poeple just want to forget what the depressionof the late 80's / 90's was like?

And...speaking as somone living in Belfast...their Policies for here will never want to see them in power.

 

[Efour]

Not a huge fan of the Tories but even they will do a job one billion times better than the scum that is Labour. Chimps could do a better job than Labour.

Nothing against the licensee fee.

im guessing you are 20 years old or less. if thats correct then you are in for a big surprise, if you are 30 something+ then you need your head examined.

as for the BBC, one of the best value services in the country. No government should use money issues with them as a potential vote winner.

 

[Nitefly]

There is NOTHING the BBC would do differently with adverts as opposed to being subsidised, they already have a advertising/revenue department as they run add's in other media and markets, just not their tv channels basically.

I disagree. With advertisements being aired, the aim of the programming will be to maximise viewing and listening figures. As a result, they will channel their efforts into producing material which will cater primarily for the mainstream or the largest viewing figures. The incentive to cater for all tastes will be lost.

Just look at the difference between the programme broadcast on even Radio 1 (let alone Radio 2-5) or something commercial like Heart FM. I imagine the rock-based and dance-based music channels would be shortened or removed completely, and the incentive to air fresh, upcoming artists will also be lost. Radio 1 is mainstream as it is, but it's incredibly diverse compared to the vast majority of commercial stations. The same applies to their television programming.