Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
I wish there were more actual competition, more new players. But nope. None of the recent charter proposal would help with that. Same old cynical sods, same old complaints. 
Government could ban BBC from showing top shows at peak times
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
I would imagine the Lords would want a say.
Not sure how a Tory party could consider this - a large amount of their voter base are people who believe satellite dishes are the mark of the council tenant, and are too old to still be awake at the sort of times they might want to push Strictly and Bake Off to.
the point was that the entertainment part is mostly commercially viable stuff and I'm still not seeing why it should be subsidised by a license fee?
commercial broadcasters would still have to compete with them if they ran a UK commercial arm to fund or part fund their PSB arm, the point was that all of the BBC is subsidised and competes in areas that shouldn't need subsidy
aside from this meaning there is a pointless fee levied on people (and a resulting 10% of cases at magistrates courts across the UK relating to enforcement of it) there is also just the principle that it creates a degree of unfairness in that marketplace - the others have to watch their budgets with regards to advertising revenue whereas the BBC can overspend on some show (in some cases bidding for and winning by overpaying for a show at the expense of others) using the subsidy it gets from the general public.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
I'm thinking tis a tactical bluff to cover up another bondage appointment.
But I could be wrong.
Never heard of them, what was the last thing they broadcast?
I know you're not having a go, but I honestly NEVER watch any BBC channel, nothing of interest for a 40 year old male.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,398
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
The licence fee costs £12 a month and with that you get a lot of content plus several live radio and tv channels with no adverts. People have become very tight it seems. The one great thing about BBC radio is the fact you do not have to listen to 10 minute adverts on your 30 minute commute and there is something for everyone.
Problem is many of the BBC radio stations just chat junk for hours if they are not playing Now whatever number on repeat.
Not even the history and science documentaries on BBC 4?
If it is such good value, then restricting access to content to those who pay, and making it optional, shouldn't be a problem.
For TV, all the tech is already in place on digital terrestrial, satellite and cable to do this.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,745
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Yup I'm 10% with Dolph here
Subscription basis and be done with it.
Those claimign the BBC is the best thing ever an oh such good value for money will no doubt subscribe, those that don't well they won't.
Issue fixed
Why shoudl everyone pay a "tax" to bbc if they don't necessarily use it?
You can argue that with a lot of things, part of my Council Tax goes to the Church which I don't use. Some people may never use the Fire Service or Police, some people spend half their life in A&E, some people hardly ever see a Doctor.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
Same can be said for all facets of govt, I don't use the English railway systems, why should my taxes be used to subsidise tickets prices to the tune of almost 50%? Why should I pay for NHS, or education, or pay for social care, or all the little local government things that I make absolutely no use of, or do not partake in?
Radio, be it regional, national and local will not be funded by a subscription model, as such a thing doesn't exist.
How would you fund it using a subscription model?
Calling people tight for being forced to pay for something we never use..
Also have no need to listen to any of the BBC radio stations as the island I live on has it own radio stations..
Last edited:
thing is people advocating that it is such good value know that in reality lots of people don't consider it good value and wouldn't bother subscribing to the BBC vs Netflix or Amazon Prime etc.. - they seem to want to keep it but with lots of people who'd otherwise not pay for it subsidising it for them.
but you're talking about things funded from general taxation - services that can be expanded or cut rapidly and are run by government departments overseen by ministers. The BBC is largely independent and has its own revenue stream from the license fee. I'd have no objection to the government funding local radio for PSB purposes.
Times have changed from the days when you only had about 4 TV channels (BBC1,BBC2,ITV,CH4)
So now there loads of TV channels to choose from you shouldn't be forced to pay for a couple of BBC ones..
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,307
From what I remember it used to be ITV that was guilty of this practise by deliberately putting its shows on at exactly the same time as the BBC's top shows in the hope of stealing viewers away. Now it seems thats its output is so mediocre it has to be artificially propped up instead? Interference much?
Its a hell of a lot cheaper than Sky thats for sure. And Sky still shows incessant adverts. As someone who listens to a lot of radio its worth the fee for that alone.
Last edited:
If somebody pushed a newspaper you didn't want through your letterbox every day and at the end of the month demanded 20 quid you'd be somewhat annoyed.
This is what the BBC does - supplies people with something they may well not want and then tells you to pay for it.
This is what the BBC does - supplies people with something they may well not want and then tells you to pay for it.