Speaking to few people doesn't give a representative view. Ofcom did a proper study on it recently though, summarised here.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-of-losing-young-audiences-according-to-ofcom
No.10 tells BBC licence fee will be scrapped - Sunday Times
- Thread starter Raulduke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Speaking to few people doesn't give a representative view. Ofcom did a proper study on it recently though, summarised here.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-of-losing-young-audiences-according-to-ofcom
Even then, if people don't want to use it why force them to pay for it?
Paying money to an organization that hid Jimmy Savile for years?
If you (and the rest of your household) really only watch Netflix/YouTube etc and (non BBC) catch-up you don't need a licence.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence/
It's a public service. It depends on your political and economic outlook I guess. Do publicly funded bodies like the BBC create a greater public good, even if at an individual level some people may feel that they don't use the service that much?
I'd argue that yes it does. Once its gone and we go full US style toxic partisanship with our news coverage I think people will start to realise that. It will be a big and regrettable step to the full Americanisation of our society in my opinion.
Like i said in a previous post this isn't the 90s , there are so many choices out there a lot of people won't even notice they have gone to subscriptions. The article you posted above even says the younger generations don't watch it anymore, so I don't believe the impact would be significant.
Also the people that would subscribe the BBC will be subscribing for the way its currently run, if they went a completely different way they wouldn't keep those subscribers. So it's actually in their interests to keep it as it is.
I have sky sports for the football, cricket etc, so I have to pay. Its rediculous.
The article says that many of them do actually watch BBC content on other platforms without realising it.
I think that you underestimate what the BBC does through it's news coverage. It has to try to be balanced and impartial because its a public service. It may fail to do so at times but in the absence of a service that has such a mandate the market becomes open for news services that essentially act as propaganda arms of specific political parties, as they do in America. Its a weakening of the democratic system in my opinion, which is why the BBC is a hugely important public service.
I accept your point that times have changed and that the younger generations are pretty much fully integrated into the Americanisation and full commercialisation of our society. I don't think that's a good thing, however. For me the license fee is worth paying simply on the basis that I don't have to listen to adverts when consuming high quality media content. I find it an intrusion.
I'm not sure what you're getting at on your last sentence but if the BBC goes subscription only then it becomes subject to commercial pressures and is no longer the service that it is. It becomes involved in the race to the bottom that commercial broadcasters are generally involved in. It would also have to compete against the likes of Netflix, Apple, Disney etc that invest mind boggling amounts into their services to chase market share rather than profits. I don't see how a UK service could compete against these giants.
I don't believe any media service doesn't have a level of bias, but this is not the reason why I want it scrapped, people should be able to make their own minds up on what they want to consume, the only role the government should have in the media is regulation (stopping fake news, hate speech etc).
Agree about ads, but there are not any ads on subscription services. At the end of the day you value the BBC a lot more than me, which I take no issue with, but I see no good reason why non users should be forced to fund it.
So they will become an adverts channel. Eugh.
On the whole I like watching bbc, whether it’s the news, MoTD, dramas, I think generally they get good programming
On the whole I like watching bbc, whether it’s the news, MoTD, dramas, I think generally they get good programming
It feels like they need to review the licence fee rather than scrap it. I had no idea that it covered any live tv including the subscription ones such as Sky.
Maybe the way forward is to make it a Freeview subscription including BBC and any paid-for channels are watchable without a licence.
The BBC is a con. It costs me more per month than Netflix and just think of the disparity in not just quantity but quality of content!
If the BBC thought it was genuinely giving value for money then it would have no problem moving to a subscription based model because surely that would be more lucrative!
If the BBC thought it was genuinely giving value for money then it would have no problem moving to a subscription based model because surely that would be more lucrative!
The BBC will have no worries making mainstream TV that can be sold abroad... But regional programmes and Programmes in Welsh and regional news / radio clearly has a much more limited commercial value.
I think if they have the licence fee cut they will also need to cut the regional broadcast requirements as well for the BBC to be viable and then yeah I think a subscription model would work fine for them potentially with some advertising (eg sponsoring programmes or product placement) and selling programmes abroad.
One of the difficulties would be trying to switch from the existing model with certain fixed overheads straight to another so I assume there will be phased withdrawal of the licence fee?
The BBC offers a far wider range of services than Netflix (which arguably is under priced given its cash burn). Arguably too wide. if the BBC goes subs only it will become far more expensive, or it’ll become more global (less UK) or it’ll become narrower in scope, or it’ll become more niche - aimed at the interests of those who can afford to pay.
It will certainly become less relevant and influential - and dismantling a public service like that will provide lessons on how to go after other beloved expensive public services. So you can see why the Tories want to do it.
Last edited:
That could work. I think perhaps making the licence mandatory at perhaps £5-7 a month whilst getting ad revenue on iPlayer and say BBC3 and 4 (live) initially could be the way to go and then slowly phase out the mandatory element. You’re right, they can’t just stop it dead but there should be a plan in place because there’s no way the current model can possibly last. Most people under the age of 40 that I know can’t understand why they have to pay it (I’m 37 and literally none of my friends watch the Beeb) and soon enough Parliament will be full of Millennials and Gen X.
Doubt this will happen but id bloody love it.
We never watch the BBC, but are forced to pay for it, we pay more for BBC than we do for Netflix which we watch virtually every day. If we didn't pay Top Gear and Gary Lineker will turn up and threaten us with Court. .
Wouldn't mind paying a very reduced fee to fund regional news etc, but being threatened with court if I don't fund The Voice? feck that. If people want to watch that dribble then watch adverts/opt into a subscription.
Its all academic though, no government will ever have the guts to end it.
We never watch the BBC, but are forced to pay for it, we pay more for BBC than we do for Netflix which we watch virtually every day. If we didn't pay Top Gear and Gary Lineker will turn up and threaten us with Court. .
Wouldn't mind paying a very reduced fee to fund regional news etc, but being threatened with court if I don't fund The Voice? feck that. If people want to watch that dribble then watch adverts/opt into a subscription.
Its all academic though, no government will ever have the guts to end it.
Last edited:
1. Will be interesting to see what happens when The authoritative voice about politics is removed from public discourse, I think it could be productive and also dangerous.
2. People in here are blaming Corbyn for a Tory govt carrying out something they talked about in the campaign
It's as though you can't face the reality of your own govt.
2. People in here are blaming Corbyn for a Tory govt carrying out something they talked about in the campaign
It's as though you can't face the reality of your own govt.
You’re comparing the vastly overfunded* Netflix app, to only the Beeb’s TV stations. Admittedly there’s no comparison there.
But, the BBC in terms of its TV content, national news coverage, local news coverage, sports coverage, various websites and apps, local and national radio stations, and podcasts, all combined provides much more than Netflix, in at least my opinion.
* One point that’s missed in this debate is that Netflix’s business model is completely unsustainable in its current format. The amount it spends on content today is madness, and I can only believe the strategy is partially designed to destroy competitors like the BBC. Don’t get me wrong, I love Netflix and think it’s fantastic for the customer, but shareholders are currently subsidising that fantastic value for money we’re all getting. That won’t last for ever, in time we’re either going to be paying much more, or receiving much less than we do today.
Do they listen to it, or use the website? Do their young kids watch it?
One thing that really bothers me as someone who pays for the BBC but hardly ever listens to its radio content or watches its TV channels - the same people who tell us how wonderful the service is all appear to think that nobody would opt-in to subscribe/watch enough adverts to justify what the BBC produces.
Which is it? A wonderful service which everyone should be glad to have? Or an unviable system only made possible by threats of legal action if people don't pay their TV tax?
Which is it? A wonderful service which everyone should be glad to have? Or an unviable system only made possible by threats of legal action if people don't pay their TV tax?
All this does is highlight just how poor a return we get. When you consider Netflix cost about half as much, how does that represent good value for money? Look at that list of comedy. The vast majority of if is well over a decade old.
And popular shows like Doctor Who which people actually watch have nothing to fear from the end of the TV tax
They'll be picked up by someone else and probably improved.
I'm a fan of the BBC, but I struggle to see why Radio 1 (and to a lesser extent - Radio 2) should remain part of a public broadcasting service.
Perhaps someone can explain the rationale for that?
Isn't that the issue though and the reason why the BBC isn't commercial? Things like Doctor Who, The Voice and Strictly will do well and thrive on a subscriber model but Welsh language, programs made for minorities and educational TV will be scrapped as it will now have to fight for subscribers and drop loss making programs.
There's a big argument that the BBC shouldn't even have the big commercial shows competing with the likes of ITV and should focus on dramas and minority television.
Expecting people to pay £150 a year for niche programming they have no interest in watching isn't going to float. The BBC spent £32m on BBC Scotland and there were 21 programmes in the space of a month where there was literally no one watching it. There needs to be some value for money in order for it to be justified.
The BBC was as right wing as could be before the election ffs. Laura Kuenssberg was wanking him off everyday.
feck the BBC
Hey, there's a theme here!
I don't necessarily disagree, but it would be a shame for some people to lose the little bits of television that they do get. Having a non-commercial channel has definite advantages but we do need to find a way to lower the cost / change the current model to make it fairer.
I don't personally watch any of the TV but get decent usage out of radio 5 and the website and would pay something to keep that plus have a proportion of that money go to programs set out in a charter.
About time. Basically its another tax. I hardly ever watch BBC, so why should we, the British public pay for a bloated institution, that even has we paying to support BBC America and the World Service? I say make it either have advertising or subscription, then if you want to watch it you pay for it, not be forced to.
I don't understand that as a response?
Money still goes to BBC though. Why is this right if you have recorded a Ch4 film for example? (Rhetoric question)
So the BBC's total capitulation to the tories over the last few years, was in vain.
And don't bother with that balance argument. The BBC are very left leaning when it comes to social equality issues. But they openly laugh at policies which don't fit the Thatcherite norm and have for years, willingly parroted the right-wing messages of the day, lifted straight from the gutter press. The refusal to sack Laura K over her performance over the last 8 months, means I don't feel a great desire to fight for the survival of what has been, and still should be, such an important british institution.
The main fault lies with the tories of course, but the BBC should have stood up to them. They would have been supported.
And don't bother with that balance argument. The BBC are very left leaning when it comes to social equality issues. But they openly laugh at policies which don't fit the Thatcherite norm and have for years, willingly parroted the right-wing messages of the day, lifted straight from the gutter press. The refusal to sack Laura K over her performance over the last 8 months, means I don't feel a great desire to fight for the survival of what has been, and still should be, such an important british institution.
The main fault lies with the tories of course, but the BBC should have stood up to them. They would have been supported.
The BBC did practically nothing to take the Tories to task over Brexit, for the most part they barely acknowledged it compared to other news organisations. Now their chickens are coming to roost, they helped the villains, now the villains have stabbed them in the back.
I think the quality of their news and politics coverage in particular has been dire for a while, not sure there's much of value to protect there anymore.
...but the world has changed.
I have to pay over £100 / month to my cable provider for land line, broadband and cable (incl Sky and BT). I've got 100s of channels there, plus subscriptions to Amazon Prime and Netflix.
My problem with the BBC is that its news, current affairs; and even documentary, drama and childrens content spews out a view which does not represent my own. For my £13 / month I don't want it to spew out any view.
So, these days, I watch box sets, documentaries and films from other sources; and I use YouTube to source political commentary that I simply can't find on the BBC.
Agreed. I stopped watching sky news many years ago. So I was actually shocked when, about a year or so ago, I tuned in one day. They were so much more honest in their approach than the BBC who were so terrified of being actually critical of brexit, that they'd fall over each other trying to make sure the full tory case was heard, and emphasised, time and again.
Well, you the British Public should know that BBC America isn't funded by the licence fee as a quick google would have revealed. And the World Service was directly funded by the government until 5 years ago when they forced the BBC to fund it instead.