TV Licence Super Thread

[a1ex2001]

lol, no it wouldn't As before changing how you pay for bbc content doesnt mean its no longer a public service broadcaster. Introducing a subscription based model is literally one of the suggestions on the table along with a tax added to council tax bills, internet providers etc etc

you are trolling now right, surely

Lovely except the option of a pure subscription was effectively ruled out early on due to concerns over universal access as it would be incompatible with the operation of a public service broadcaster, with a possible top up/premium subscription still under consideration. I'm not trolling just pointing out that once again you are campaigning for the effective end of public service broadcasting in the UK and the privatisation of the BBC not just 'changing how you pay', it's ok for you to say you want the BBC to be transformed into a commercial broadcaster and allowed to sink or swim on it's ability to attract subscribers but don't pretend that that doesn't fundamentally change the way the service would have to operate, the content it would be able to deliver and the very nature of it's public broadcast remit.

 

[adolf hamster]

Lovely except the option of a pure subscription was effectively ruled out early on due to concerns over universal access as it would be incompatible with the operation of a public service broadcaster, with a possible top up/premium subscription still under consideration. I'm not trolling just pointing out that once again you are campaigning for the effective end of public service broadcasting in the UK and the privatisation of the BBC not just 'changing how you pay', it's ok for you to say you want the BBC to be transformed into a commercial broadcaster and allowed to sink or swim on it's ability to attract subscribers but don't pretend that that doesn't fundamentally change the way the service would have to operate, the content it would be able to deliver and the very nature of it's public broadcast remit.

if the issue is that enough people are opting out of the license that funds the public broadcast service that it's becoming a problem, then that seems a pretty democratic way of learning that perhaps the system needs to change.

humanity and particularly the ones inhabiting Britain boggle my mind sometimes, the most basic of things we need to function in society like shelter, water, food, energy and transportation are happily placed in the arms of for-profit industry but somehow doing the same to television is beyond the pale.

 

[a1ex2001]

if the issue is that enough people are opting out of the license that funds the public broadcast service that it's becoming a problem, then that seems a pretty democratic way of learning that perhaps the system needs to change.

humanity and particularly the ones inhabiting Britain boggle my mind sometimes, the most basic of things we need to function in society like shelter, water, food, energy and transportation are happily placed in the arms of for-profit industry but somehow doing the same to television is beyond the pale.

None of those things should have been privatised, they have all been demonstrably bad for society and the country.

 

[C Kent]

Lovely except the option of a pure subscription was effectively ruled out early on due to concerns over universal access as it would be incompatible with the operation of a public service broadcaster, with a possible top up/premium subscription still under consideration. I'm not trolling just pointing out that once again you are campaigning for the effective end of public service broadcasting in the UK and the privatisation of the BBC not just 'changing how you pay', it's ok for you to say you want the BBC to be transformed into a commercial broadcaster and allowed to sink or swim on it's ability to attract subscribers but don't pretend that that doesn't fundamentally change the way the service would have to operate, the content it would be able to deliver and the very nature of it's public broadcast remit.

The subscription model was ruled out because ultimately it wouldn't generate the funds the bbc requires to run dressed up as an argument "it could reduce the BBC's reach and accessibility across different income groups", the government and the bbc don't give a monkies about low income households either otherwise the licence fee itself would be subject to discounts tied to income levels. It had/has absolutely nothing to with the end of the bbc as public service broadcasting and the beginning of the privatisation as per your bat **** claim. Changing to a subscription model isn't the start of a transformation to a commercial broadcaster either (I dont think you actually understand the difference between a commercial broadcaster and a public service broadcaster if you honestly believe that). Especially as I can 'subscribe' to the bbc for a month now if I so wish by buying a tv licence for a month and then cancel it and not pay!

Implementing a proper subscription method for bbc content (along side the current version) is future proofing the bbc for when freeview/freesat both disappear in the next 8 years and would lead to a cut down in people watching when they shouldn't be able to if the actual aim of the current charter review was a modernisation of the bbc instead of looking for ways where they can force everyone to pay regardless which is what the 'youtube tax' or 'internet tax' is.

 

[Nabinium]

The YouTube/Netflix tax is the worst tax idea that they've put out. I've seen comments from other people who are pro BBC and even they think that idea is awful.

 

[a1ex2001]

The subscription model was ruled out because ultimately it wouldn't generate the funds the bbc requires to run dressed up as an argument "it could reduce the BBC's reach and accessibility across different income groups", the government and the bbc don't give a monkies about low income households either otherwise the licence fee itself would be subject to discounts tied to income levels. It had/has absolutely nothing to with the end of the bbc as public service broadcasting and the beginning of the privatisation as per your bat **** claim. Changing to a subscription model isn't the start of a transformation to a commercial broadcaster either (I dont think you actually understand the difference between a commercial broadcaster and a public service broadcaster if you honestly believe that). Especially as I can 'subscribe' to the bbc for a month now if I so wish by buying a tv licence for a month and then cancel it and not pay!

Implementing a proper subscription method for bbc content (along side the current version) is future proofing the bbc for when freeview/freesat both disappear in the next 8 years and would lead to a cut down in people watching when they shouldn't be able to if the actual aim of the current charter review was a modernisation of the bbc instead of looking for ways where they can force everyone to pay regardless which is what the 'youtube tax' or 'internet tax' is.

Is that your interpretation of why a subscription model was ruled out I’ve not seen it stated anywhere?

I can’t find any examples of a public service broadcaster in the world that operates under an entirely subscription driven model apparently because to do so would compromise there public service obligations …. So no it’s not swear word crazy to suggest making the BBC a subscription only service is the end of it as a public service broadcaster.

The really stupid decision is not just funding the BBC out of general taxation, if the government thinks we need a public services broadcaster they should just fund it as all this talk of Netflix tax, broadband tax etc is just deflection so they can say they didn’t fund it the obvious way in which they fund all other public services. Then we could shift the debate to where it really should be ie do we need a public services broadcaster, what should such a service look like, what content should it offer and how much should it cost. This would much better enable modernisation of the BBC and focus on a core public service offering.