-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
The government will fund it because it is a public service broadcaster, virtually every country in Europe has one that is funded in similar ways to the BBC. I fully get that you don't see the value in public service broadcasting but it seems to still be valued and we all pay for a myriad of public services we may or may not use
The BBC is being reduced as it needs to save money and reduce costs, the current charter renewal will likely see this process accelerated with even more services stripped away as it is refocussed. The BBC isn't a company it is a public service broadcaster funded by the TV license so I'm not really sure what your get out of jail free car statement it all about.... they won't get a new bill but likely a small increase on an existing bill, all the talk coming out of government is about reducing the cost of the TV license which would tie in well with making it a universal tax as that would reduce the per capita payment, once again I get that you don't like this but the BBC is staying and will be funded and the government (not the BBC) are looking at how best to do this.
YEs the BBC is still globally recognized which has nurmerous advantages to the UK as a whole, the BBC's biggest struggles seem to be at home...
AI said:
HS2, One.login, Digital ID, excessive welfare spending, cycle lanes, online safety act, advertising campaigns.
I don't have kids, so any spending on education, childcare etc. is completely unnecessary for me at this point, but I don't pay any less because I'm not making use of those facilities. I can see the benefit of having them, but from a personal point of view I'm sure I'm paying far more a month in tax, than I do for the TV license for something gives me far less benefit.
So essentially the 'argument' to people already struggling with the cost of living is '**** you, pay more'? From what i can see the latest round of cost cutting will save around 500m (ironically roughly the same amount of revenue that's been lost over the past year from people turning their back on the bcc and not paying the tv licence). Maybe, and this is a crazy suggestion I know, the bbc should focus on providing a service that people actually want to use..
It's still the most watched service in the UK I believe, YouTube and Netflix may get higher viewer numbers these days, but actual time spent watching is lower, so seems like they are providing a service that people want to watch. And that's just the TV, not the radio and web services.
But we all benefit from paying for education as an example.
If we who don't have kids didn't contribute to education there would be no one to pay for NHS etc etc.
Even though I don't have kids I've no issue paying tax for schooling same way as my schooling was paid for by others.
Great, so go to a sub model and the people that see value for money can continue to pay, those of us who don't see a value can then choose not to pay. I expect that there is a sizable chunk of people (like myself) that have a tv licence who only watch 'live' content on other platforms.
Yes, the same here, I can see the benefit, but I am not getting any direct benefit myself from paying for it. There are also many things where I don't believe there is any benefit at all, that I still have to pay for (and even things that I feel could be detrimental to me personally that I still have to pay for.
A subscription model is not possible for broadcast TV, at least, not without some massive changes to Freeview\Freesat to allow it to work (and people buying new TVs or set-top boxes to utilise it)
Last edited:
Freeview/freesat will be phased out in under a decade regardless, what will the excuse be then I wonder
So that would be a discussion for the next charter renewal in 10 years (although I believe there is some talk of removing the charter renewal)
As Travis said a subscription model is incompatible with free to air TV and RADIO and the world service etc etc. It seems that people who are against the BBC think all that is on the table is strictly, EastEnders and the traitors, the service delivered by the BBC goes far beyond this Offcom states that 83% of UK adults use a BBC service weekly so it is hardly the majority being asked to support the minority. Arguing that public services should be on a subscription basis is silly as others have said plenty of public services are of no interest to a lot of people but they still have value to the country.
As I've said elsewhere basically every country in Europe has a public service broadcaster funded either by license fee, taxation or a combination of the two so you are arguing against the established norm for developed countries which will take decades to change if it ever does.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 15,121
- Location
- La France
Freesat is going away much sooner than that as the Astra 28.2 East satellite that broadcasts Freesat is due to run out of fuel for its station keeping thrusters at some point in 2029.
And removal of the technical limitation does not remove the simple fact a public service broadcaster doesn't really work under a subscription model as it is hard for it to pursue a public service brief when it has to chase subscriber numbers endlessly, technology will no doubt change further in the coming years and what replaces terrestrial broadcasting will be very interesting to see.
Yes, very true, it would be difficult to make the BBC work as a subscription without turning it into something other than what it is meant to be, as all the additional costs of providing the things expected of a PSB would likely make it unviable, so it either becomes just another entertainment based streaming app or some sort of tax\subsidy is still required to cover the PSB requirements.
The debate essentially boils down to does the UK want/need a public services broadcaster, if the answer is yes then it needs to be funded and the simple way to do this is some sort of tax. The government have effectively already decided the BBC will get a new charter so the debate now is simply what does the future BBC look like, how much does it cost and how does the government cover that cost.
and plenty of countries have pubic broadcasting services that arent subject to a national licence. France, for example, recently abolished it's tv licence, instead its funded via different means (and no there was no 'tax increase' to cover the removal). also worth pointing out Ch4 is a 'public broadcasting service', and they mange just fine. Amazing isnt it..
Last edited:
France dropped the TV license and instead apportioned a dedicated chunk of VAT to the public broadcaster increasing the level of funding at the same time, so while there may not have been an obvious tax increase to cover it either other services suffered or other taxes increased as their is no such thing as a free lunch. They are still looking at how to fund it long term and are even considering abolishing tax breaks for pay TV subscriptions to cover the cost. Adding a new tax to fund it would at least be transparent rather than the smoke and mirrors of removing the license while upping spending through general taxation. Channel 4 has a very different public service remit to the BBC on a much smaller scale similarly ITV and Channel 5 have public broadcast commitments but are private profit making entities this does not make them directly comparable to the BBC.
We had subscription TV 30+ years ago. You just have a decoder box with an insertable membership card. Sky used it forever.
That way only the people who want it need to buy it.
AI is heavily censored, so ignores the whole peado thing.
Last edited: