BBC licence fee could be means tested everyone pays regardless of whether or not they own a telev

Glaucus said:
Absolutely, it's a service that is deemed to benefit the country, has mandates to cover a wide range of topics, including education and tests new standards. It is no different to any other infrastructure whether you directly use it or not. As long as there's a strong mandate and they are held to it.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is key I think. Currently the BBC pumps out shows like homes under the hammer, Don't tell the bride, strictly come dancing etc. etc. They also have a completely bloated website. They have two to many TV channels and loads of rubbish radio. They pay 'stars' ridiculous wages, are very London centric and their news reporting is about as biased as the newspapers.

At one time the BBC and the way it was funded was relevant. That time is long past and the only fair way to go forward is to put all of it's services behind some sort of paywall in the same manner as say Sky or Netflix.

You can be sure that if it ever did go the paywall route viewer numbers would plummet. To compare the BBC to some sort of public infrastructure is pretty far removed from modern day reality. The internet has replaced the BBC as a source of entertainment and knowledge. All this is, is a job protection scheme for some middle class self pleasurers clinging on to the only thing they know how to do at the expense of the poor mostly.
 
It is absolutely not irrelevant and Netflix isn't similar in any way. You just have to look at the mandate to see that. But I bet you haven't even had a general glance at what the mandate actually is.

It is also becoming far less London centric with loads of things moving out if London to save money.
 
MookJong said:
The BBC has high standards in many areas, these standards should be maintained as a British institution.

For example show me a commercial radio station with output anywhere close to what Radio4 produce?
Click to expand...

High standards? Not in a long time.
 
Eulogy said:
No I don't use any of the above, and I resent having to pay for a service I don't use. I am already paying for line rental on a phone line when there is no phone attached to it, I require it for my broadband and nothing else.
Click to expand...

You probably don't use a lot of things that you pay for through tax.

If someone sends their kids to private school they don't get to pay less tax because they aren't using the school system.
 
joking aside I think they should

get rid of all the extra stations and stick to
News / Current Affairs
Documentries
Decent dramas etc

they can keep bake off / masterchef / apprentice going for the lulz
but all other rubbish like eastenders and the voice can get in the sea!
 
Just put adverts on the channels like everywhere else and stop this daft obsession with an old-fashioned, pointless monopolistic-self-serving load of tripe that is the leviathan BBC organisation.
 
Glaucus said:
It is absolutely not irrelevant and Netflix isn't similar in any way. You just have to look at the mandate to see that. But I bet you haven't even had a general glance at what the mandate actually is.

It is also becoming far less London centric with loads of things moving out if London to save money.
Click to expand...

If you read my post you would see that I wasn't comparing it to Netflix directly.

The BBC's mandate: To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.

Please explain to me why a Netflix type model of subscription could not be implemented and still allow the BBC to inform, educate and entertain?

I am glad to see you agree with me that currently the BBC is London centric.
 
Glaucus said:
Absolutely, it's a service that is deemed to benefit the country, has mandates to cover a wide range of topics, including education and tests new standards. It is no different to any other infrastructure whether you directly use it or not. As long as there's a strong mandate and they are held to it.
Click to expand...

I am unsure as to how exactly how the BBC benefits the country is no different from any other broadcaster be it terristrial or pay per view television. As a strong mandate is clearly not evident in the programmes broadcasted. The BBC is another bygone era that traditionalists wish to cling on to for posterity. It is a defunt broadcaster that has failed to move with the times and is completly self reliant on the license fee. Times have changed and the BBC needs to catch up and reinvent its self completely. It is a overhaul long over due. The license fee needs to go and the BBC needs to compete alongside the other broadcasters.
 
Last edited:
EdwardTeach said:
You probably don't use a lot of things that you pay for through tax.

If someone sends their kids to private school they don't get to pay less tax because they aren't using the school system.
Click to expand...

True but at least those things are often necessary or important for the wider community.

In fact it's worse for me than most because my road isn't adopted by the local council, but I get no reduction in council tax. I have to pay a yearly fee to the estate management company on top of my council tax.

BBC as an institution is outdated, every other channel/service manages to run without taxing the population.
 
Glaucus said:
Rofl, you think that's all the mandate stipulates. Haha.
Click to expand...

Of course their is a bit more to it than their mission statement but it gives you a general idea of what their mandate is. You haven't explained to me how it couldn't be funded via a subscription service similar to the Netflix model.
 
visibleman said:
The license pays for vastly more services than just TV programming, so it'd be impossible to pay wall the lot (ie - radio stations for example).
Which is why i'm all for making the BBC an essential service and incorporating it into national taxes - everyone is using some form of BBC service (youview/freeview/freesat platforms etc) even if they don't watch BBC TV channels.
Click to expand...

I'm not..... so clearly everyone is not

but lets make it a taxation because you use it.


Everyone uses some form of the internet, why not making it a license? so the people who don't use the internet can subsidise the cost for you :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Eulogy said:
True but at least those things are often necessary or important for the wider community.

In fact it's worse for me than most because my road isn't adopted by the local council, but I get no reduction in council tax. I have to pay a yearly fee to the estate management company on top of my council tax.

BBC as an institution is outdated, every other channel/service manages to run without taxing the population.
Click to expand...

Because the TVL funds much more than just the BBC.
 
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/agreement.pdf

Most of which do not and can not happen on commercial TV.
BBC news is considered some of the best news in the world.
BBC creates educational programs which no commercial channel would touch as its a loss leader, same with a lot of BBC content.
Then there's the testing and adopting new technology and standards, which again you dint see commercial channels doing due to cost and having to upgrade the infrastructure.
 
lovelyhead said:
To compare the BBC to some sort of public infrastructure is pretty far removed from modern day reality. The internet has replaced the BBC as a source of entertainment and knowledge.
Click to expand...

In the UK yes, but in the broader world the network the BBC has built up over decades gives us a lot of influence we'd never have otherwise. No matter what we think here the BBC is trusted and respected in many parts of the world.

Does that mean it should be paid for by viewers of Eastenders in the UK? No. Should it be fully at the mercy of the commercial market, equally no, that would destroy it's unique position to spread influence beyond this little island.

I'd be happy to see light entertainment supported in some way by advertising or subscription but the tricky part is identifying what is light entertainment (Is the today show? I find it so, but it certainly isn't commercialy viable). We could well find the cost of classifying output is actually more than just paying for it from taxation in the first place :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom