Government could ban BBC from showing top shows at peak times

Dis86 · 1 May 2016 at 18:31

Bluecube said:
I really don't get what the government want from the BBC. The message seems to be don't produce anything that's good cause it'll impact ITV's ad revenue. Radical thought - maybe ITV should produce decent programmes instead of the bilge they currently churn out.

I like the BBC. It's not perfect by a long chalk but it's a bulwark against the mindless, lowest common denominator trash TV that fills up the satellite channels and ITV.

Totally agree.

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 18:42

MissChief said:
I don't want adverts. I like the fact there aren't any! Sure the BBC is pretty bloated but immgald they don't have adverts or need to always think about how many viewers they'll get to sell advertising.

well they could offer a subscription model then for most of their content that is no different to prime time commercial TV, I don't like adverts either I can mostly avoid them on amazon prime

no reason why they need to be funded by the current license model - anyone who wants to watch most of their commercial rivals needs to subsidise them and that is just wrong IMO

Pawnless Endgame · 1 May 2016 at 19:48

eatcustard said:
The BBC must go, its just a left wing propaganda machine.
Why we must pay to watch rubbish is unacceptable.

+1

Also, TV (all channels) died in the early 2000s, the same pit that took chart music.

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 19:52

Morons want the BBC dead for idealogical reasons, news at 10, pope is a catholic, bear defecates in woodland area etc...

Destination · 1 May 2016 at 20:04

Conanius said:
That is literally all I watch on the BBC. Their news has been appalling for the last few years, and the radio stations are laughable.

The sooner the fee is abolished the better.

I do rather disagree.
I find radio2 excellent for daytime listening. Inoffensive, wide range of music. 6music is very good for music. 5live is good for sports coverage when I don't have a sky subscription.

BBC news station is decent for what it does, their news has deteriorated over the past number of years but they still manage to remain streets ahead of ITV and SKY in their coverage.

For television they do decent dramas, one offs and series. Their children's channels remain educational and fun.

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 20:12

Hikari Kisugi said:
I do rather disagree.
I find radio2 excellent for daytime listening. Inoffensive, wide range of music. 6music is very good for music. 5live is good for sports coverage when I don't have a sky subscription.

BBC news station is decent for what it does, their news has deteriorated over the past number of years but they still manage to remain streets ahead of ITV and SKY in their coverage.

For television they do decent dramas, one offs and series. Their children's channels remain educational and fun.

No Paid or Advertising service offers anything like the quality of Children's content on the beeb; Why would broadcasts without public service requirements built into their charter do so?

For me the BRITISH broadcasting corporation and it's output are one of the few things that keep our cultural identity, which is in danger of morphing into some Americanised cultural junkfood Rubbish.

But I'm probably just a butthurt "Liberal" wow that is a word ban

Just butthurt (and a few others) to go and OCuk can write out the cultural imperialism, of the hat wearing burger eating variety...

Dis86 · 1 May 2016 at 20:14

stewski said:
No Paid or Advertising service offers anything like the quality of Children's content on the beeb; Why would broadcasts without public service requirements built into their charter do so?

For me the BRITISH broadcasting corporation and it's output are one of the few things that keep our cultural identity, which is in danger of morphing into some Americanised cultural junkfood Rubbish.

But I'm probably just a butthurt *******

No. I agree. I've seen tv channels all over the world and the bbc is simply the best available.

SlyReaper · 1 May 2016 at 20:16

datalol-jack said:
The BBC, warts and all, is perhaps one of the few sources of broadcast journalism where a balanced presentation is written anywhere near a charter. I'm not sure what the advantage of converting it to a purely streaming service, for now, would be either, since entertainment isn't its sole remit and access via the Internet vs TV sets isn't clear cut either.

As above, seems just a double whammy of trying to cut an unpopular headline figure and poking people who make life difficult for all and sundry ('cause it's their job!) at the same time.

Trouble with that is that "balanced presentation" is interpreted as meaning giving equal air time to people who know what they're talking about, and total nutters.

chaparral · 1 May 2016 at 20:20

Sliver said:
This. Instead of forcing people to pay the fee they should make it an option.

Agree

I have not watched any BBC channels or listen to BBC radio stations for years but am still made to pay for the BBC license every year.... :mad:

The only thing I really watch is movies on sky,netflix,amazon prime

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 20:22

If the BBC was a simple subscription service, it would not be the British Broadcasting Corporation.

It would be one of many (Mostly Americanised and simply commercial) options for content.

Destination · 1 May 2016 at 20:23

chaparral said:
Agree

I have not watched any BBC channels or listen to BBC radio stations for years but am still made to pay for the BBC license every year....

The only thing I really watch is movies on sky,netflix,amazon prime

You're forced to pay for education and the NHS also, no matter your usage.
It isn't a good argument to make.

chaparral · 1 May 2016 at 20:28

Hikari Kisugi said:
You're forced to pay for education and the NHS also, no matter your usage.
It isn't a good argument to make.

How can you even compare being forced to pay for education and NHS compared to be forced to pay for some crappy TV channels & radio stations... :confused:

Guess you also think everyone should be forced to pay for Netflix,amazon prime,Sky etc even if they don't watch any the stuff on them..

Judgeneo · 1 May 2016 at 20:32

I'm not a license payer, so plans don't really bother me.

Only BBC content I consume is the online news. As far as I can tell, their online services and news cost around £300-400 million per year, or around 10% of their spend.

If the license fee was split up into different parts, I'd be happy to pay for what I use on a subscription basis.

FutileBreadMachine · 1 May 2016 at 20:33

stewski said:
[bNo Paid or Advertising service offers anything like the quality of Children's content on the beeb[/b]; Why would broadcasts without public service requirements built into their charter do so?

For me the BRITISH broadcasting corporation and it's output are one of the few things that keep our cultural identity, which is in danger of morphing into some Americanised cultural junkfood Rubbish.

But I'm probably just a butthurt "Liberal" wow that is a word ban

Just butthurt (and a few others) to go and OCuk can write out the cultural imperialism, of the hat wearing burger eating variety...

Agreed, CBeebies is quite decent and the other children's channels are actually sickening how much they try and flog Chinese-made junk to children constantly.

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 20:33

chaparral said:
How can you even compare being forced to pay for education and NHS compared to be forced to pay for some crappy TV channels & radio stations...

Because in Britain we have historically done all 3. As for crappy, octonauts is second to none. Try it you might like it

dowie · 1 May 2016 at 20:36

stewski said:
If the BBC was a simple subscription service, it would not be the British Broadcasting Corporation.

why not - having a subscription service or carrying adverts or both doesn't mean it has to change its name

Danthus · 1 May 2016 at 20:36

But it would bring its impartiality in question even more.

Caged · 1 May 2016 at 20:43

dowie said:
why not - having a subscription service or carrying adverts or both doesn't mean it has to change its name

I'm pretty sure you know that the sentiment behind that post wasn't just expressing an attachment to the name.

The BBC shows a lot of interesting content that isn't commercially viable, so if the plan is to make it compete in a commercial environment with one hand tied behind its back by still having to do niche programming then it can only be seen a plan designed to cause it to fail.

Tunney · 1 May 2016 at 20:45

The popular prime-time programmes help subsidise local radio, the world service and more niche educational programmes. Losing the popular programmes would mean either a hike in the license fee or a reduction in what makes the BBC unique.

The BBC is renown all over the world. It helps spend British culture. Losing and reducing it would reduce our influence on the world.

stewski · 1 May 2016 at 20:46

dowie said:
why not - having a subscription service or carrying adverts or both doesn't mean it has to change its name

lol.
It isn't about a name, it's about a service that operates differently from rival services, from it's mission/charter through to it's funding.

Britain doesn't need a sky/ITV Mark 2.