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

Meladath · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:36

leaskovski said:
Why should you pay the same amount of council tax as someone living in the same sort of house but has kids going to school?

This is a poor argument.

Television is, in essence, a luxury. You must buy a television to watch it. You do not need to pay some random company to buy a child so that you can raise it.

Abraham said:
It's because most of those people who "dont use it" do actually use BBC funded content, be that iPlayer, the radio, the news site. I've not used a hospital in 15 years, but I don't begrudge funding them.

You can't compare the two. If you are shot you either go to the hospital or you die (for example). By tax going into the hospital, you can go and get the care when you need it.

Why do I want to pay money for some guy to read or watch the news? That's not essential, its not life threatening. He's not going to require it for our society to function.

If it matters that much, make it a subscription service, simple as. Those who want it can get it, those who don't... well don't.

The only reason the BBC is doing this is because television is dying out, that combined with the fact that television license isn't a law and is considered a joke so people don't pay it, costs them money to "enforce" it.

Meladath · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:38

EDIT: double post

arknor · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:40

Abraham said:
It's because most of those people who "dont use it" do actually use BBC funded content, be that iPlayer, the radio, the news site. I've not used a hospital in 15 years, but I don't begrudge funding them.

oh ofcourse they do...

as I al;ready shown I don't have flash installed, don't care about the bbc or live tv.

want a photo of my bill next showing my packages?
Well here it is

English tv is mostly ****
BBC is certainly ****
It's websites are ****

Modern world, global economy BBC does not even compete

The only thing I would probably watch is drwho but then I could just buy the box set for less than the stupid tv licence

Would it be fair to force me to pay 145 quid a year for a service I have no desire to use? its horse crap and you know it.

you might think just like the bbc do and that everyone is using at least one of their services and anyone without a tv licence is committing an offence but it's a bunch of rubbish

spoffle · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:45

leaskovski said:
Why should you pay the same amount of council tax as someone living in the same sort of house but has kids going to school?

So council tax is equivalent to a TV service? :confused:

spoffle · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:47

Abraham said:
It's because most of those people who "dont use it" do actually use BBC funded content, be that iPlayer, the radio, the news site. I've not used a hospital in 15 years, but I don't begrudge funding them.

How on earth is the BBC comparable to a hospital? People NEED hospitals.

And no, I actually don't use the BBC. I don't use iPlayer, I don't listen to the radio, I don't watch live TV and I only ever view the BBC news site if someone I shows me something on the BBC news site.

Meladath · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:55

arknor said:
oh ofcourse they do...

as I al;ready shown I don't have flash installed, don't care about the bbc or live tv.

Modern world, global economy BBC does not even compete

The only thing I would probably watch is drwho but then I could just buy the box set for less than the stupid tv licence

Would it be fair to force me to pay 145 quid a year for a service I have no desire to use? its horse crap and you know it.

you might think just like the bbc do and that everyone is using at least one of their services and anyone without a tv licence is committing an offence but it's a bunch of rubbish

spoffle said:
So council tax is equivalent to a TV service?

spoffle said:
How on earth is the BBC comparable to a hospital? People NEED hospitals.

And no, I actually don't use the BBC. I don't use iPlayer, I don't listen to the radio, I don't watch live TV and I only ever view the BBC news site if someone I shows me something on the BBC news site.

Exactly this.
I am usually very opposed the the typical american ideology of "privatise everything and the state can't control anything". But in this case, I very much am for it. Absolutely insane that I should have to pay for an entirely unessential service that I do not use.

visibleman · 17 Jul 2015 at 18:10

I'm curious, to those that believe the BBC should be put behind a pay-wall/subscription - how do you propose to paywall radio (specifically FM/AM/MW)?

Obviously if i'm going to have to pay substantially more on a subscription for BBC services then i don't want people free-loading.

xs2man · 17 Jul 2015 at 18:22

visibleman said:
I'm curious, to those that believe the BBC should be put behind a pay-wall/subscription - how do you propose to paywall radio (specifically FM/AM/MW)?

Obviously if i'm going to have to pay substantially more on a subscription for BBC services then i don't want people free-loading.

Fund BBC radio through advertising? It's not like it will annoy you so much having an advert break while listening to Greg James or some other donkey...

spoffle · 17 Jul 2015 at 18:24

visibleman said:
I'm curious, to those that believe the BBC should be put behind a pay-wall/subscription - how do you propose to paywall radio (specifically FM/AM/MW)?

Obviously if i'm going to have to pay substantially more on a subscription for BBC services then i don't want people free-loading.

What a completely selfish attitude.

Brenn47 · 17 Jul 2015 at 18:50

Abraham said:
The BBC offers significantly more than 5 times the content of ITV, what a ridiculous comparison. The BBC not only has 6 Channels of largely original content (or 4 if you exclude the timesplits (3/CBBC, 4/CBeebies)) of TV plus News, Alba etc, but also 59 radio stations, and content from all of those is available on iPlayer. That's without touching BBC Worldwide which is self funding.

I think you'll find nobody cares about 99% of the rubbish channels and radio stations!

Personally I'd like to see the BBC having to fend for itself instead of holding the public to ransom. It would fail horribly because the BBC is corrupt to the core and desperate to keep the license fee.

If the BBC went subscription only, not many people would pay.

LOL ... look at the utter rubbish on BBC1 tonight!

mattyfez · 17 Jul 2015 at 18:53

visibleman said:
I'm curious, to those that believe the BBC should be put behind a pay-wall/subscription - how do you propose to paywall radio (specifically FM/AM/MW)?

Obviously if i'm going to have to pay substantially more on a subscription for BBC services then i don't want people free-loading.

They could even have an add free version that subscribers can tune into via smart devices /phones tv, pc etc.

easyrider · 17 Jul 2015 at 19:47

ChroniC said:
Ok lets look at that.

Radio 4 - Classical and archers, what is this 1925)
.

I stopped reading after you posted this utter BS about radio 4

easyrider · 17 Jul 2015 at 19:49

V F said:
Coming from the guy who keeps calling other people chumps. You're nearly as bad as Psycho Sonny for insulting people for what they like or choose.

This thread is about PSB ...GOOGLE IT...

easyrider · 17 Jul 2015 at 19:52

Werewolf said:
It depends on your personal view of what is good.

Personally despite the fact that about 90%+ of the BBC content does not appeal to me in the slightest I understand that just because I don't like Strictly (which does have very good production values, and fills part of the inform remit as well as the entertain one), or Eastenders other people like them.
I thought Wolf Hall was great (and it looks like even the Americans thought it was good*), but can understand why someone who has no interest in History or drama might think otherwise.

It's also telling that the BBC is able to produce as much content it does for about the same that HBO charge for <10 hours of content per week.

*8 nominations for one of the main TV awards.

Wolf Hall was amazing television

Werewolf said:
ITV does far less in house though.

IIRC ITV buys in most of it's content from outside production houses.
ITV does not have an internal news or weather department (they subcontract ITN for that, and it's a far smaller output than the BBC).
ITV does no local radio.
I don't think it does much/any politics either.

It also does nothing like as much new content on it's channels.

Which means that ITV the broadcaster is largely the channel management (admin, legal, commissioning, advertising sales and some archiving).

Whilst the BBC actually produces over 50% of it's content in house, operates a news gathering organisation that is spread across the world, has news monitoring (a government mandated operation), has it's own production facilities, etc.

It's surprising how when you don't do half the stuff in house you need less staff.

People just don't get how TV works mate...

easyrider · 17 Jul 2015 at 19:56

spoffle said:
I don't watch any live TV at all, I don't consume any BBC content, why should I pay anything towards it if I'm not interested in anything it has to offer?

You seem to be suggesting that everyone has a duty to support the BBC whether they make use of it or not.

It's a public service...even if you don't use it others do and society is better for it...a lot of poor working class people learn a lot from the BBC having a direct effect on society and it's richness...

It educates people and gives them a world view...that's positive to encourage in culture and society..

It's not all about you... :rolleyes:

SPG · 17 Jul 2015 at 20:08

Pottsey said:
That is so wrong on so many levels. Forcing people to pay for something they don’t use is wrong. BBC is not about everyone in fact I would go as far to say BBC is a waste of time for many people. One can even argue its being selfish to have everyone pay for something you want and they do not want.

That is not the point, i dont use Trident nuclear missiles but i still have to pay for it (good job tbh, many nations would be no go zones) I dont use the NHS (atm) but i still have to pay for it and numerous other things a fabric of society needs to be civilized.

I would bet fair amount of money that people use a BBC service at some point every couple of days, news gathering is a prime example the BBC get it then all the other agency piggy back, Radio that tune you tap your foot whilst listening. Iplayer and sorry not live is not a excuse, you are using something from the BBC.

It is for everyone and everyone should pay. Simple as that, whether you like it or not, its not really the point.

mattyfez · 17 Jul 2015 at 20:15

easyrider said:
It's a public service...even if you don't use it others do and society is better for it...a lot of poor working class people learn a lot from the BBC having a direct effect on society and it's richness...

It educates people and gives them a world view...that's positive to encourage in culture and society..

It's not all about you...

Utter nonsense, 50 years ago I may have agreed with you.

Under this model 'Poor working class people' would still be forced pay for it through general taxation, the only thing that's changed is it would take people's choices away, they may decide what little money they have is better spent on more important things, especially when basic adsl broadband cost hardly any more, and supplies, let's face it, pretty much the entire history of human knowledge, and millions if not billions of sources for current affairs.

To think one source of data is better than a potentially Infinite source is absurd.

If you were to argue that 16meg adsl should be taxed, and free to use... then you might have a better argument.

daz · 17 Jul 2015 at 20:22

The only radio stations that do anything public service related would be Radio 3 and Radio 4. I can't see how Radio 1 and 2 can really justify their existence as a public service, they do nothing different from commercial stations.

lovelyhead · 17 Jul 2015 at 20:55

Most of these arguments for the BBC are weak sauce. The BBC's role has been replaced by the internet. End of.

Werewolf · 17 Jul 2015 at 21:04

daz said:
The only radio stations that do anything public service related would be Radio 3 and Radio 4. I can't see how Radio 1 and 2 can really justify their existence as a public service, they do nothing different from commercial stations.

IIRC Radio 1 does things like new bands, and has a vast playlist compared to the commercial stations.
There is a report that compared the number of unique artists, unique tracks, and how often each track was played.

It turned out that R1 played something like 2-3 times as many unique tracks in any one month (at least), and had far less repeats of even the most common track than the commercial broadcasters.
It explained why every time I turn Heart on I seemed to get the same tracks from the 80's and 90's within short order

R2 is slightly older radio that combines music with speech.

Then you've got the local stations.

Most of the commercial radio stations in the UK no longer do any real speech, and even where they are meant to do local news they rarely actually have much more than the most barebones, and often their local offices might only be open a few hours a day with most of the playout and presentation either common across the network or recorded in advance.