TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

wymondham said:

do they seriously sent this stuff out to people?

Rarely a working day goes by that I'm not delivering some of this junk in my role as a postie.

And my colleagues deliver it to me on a reasonably regular basis.

buglawton

The separate license fee is a fiction to make us believe the BBC has 'independent' funding from the government. Exposed as a fiction by the amount of political interference you see repeatedly from the govt in the BBC's funding arrangements and public service obligation.

It's glaringly obvious that the funding of the BBC should move into general taxation as part of income tax.That way multiple earners in a household contribute and pensioners may do but depending in their income. One reason the fee is high now is that one household with 5 adults pays only a single license. Just like your council tax statement gives you a breakdown of what proportion goes where, your income tax statement can do the same.

Additionally there's an argument for offering a premium service on-line at a modest fee to top up the govt allocated amount.

cw18

buglawton said:

It's glaringly obvious that the funding of the BBC should move into general taxation as part of income tax.That way multiple earners in a household contribute and pensioners may do but depending in their income.

And those of us who work, pay taxes and don't use the service will also end up paying for it.   But those who don't work, don't pay tax, and watch it throughout the day won't.  No thankyou!

Either put it behind a subscription wall (like Netflix etc.) or introduce adverts (like ITV) and do away with the licence altogether.   Personally I'd prefer them to go to adverts, so that people on low incomes can still access it.

buglawton

What you're advocating is don't have ad free public TV. Up to now that's not what the British public has voted for. Perhaps schools should charge parents per child, and the NHS should charge for any treatment needed because of 'lifestyle choices'?

Cornucopia

buglawton said:

What you're advocating is don't have ad free public TV. Up to now that's not what the British public has voted for. Perhaps schools should charge parents per child, and the NHS should charge for any treatment needed because of 'lifestyle choices'?

Do you think that people see that ideological distinction:  that the BBC is "free" because the Licence Fee is a tax not a fee?

I don't see it myself, and I just asked the question. 

I think in reality, people see the Licence Fee as being the cost to them of the BBC (which it is), and wouldn't regard a Subscription or a further advertising imposition as being any different as long as the costs remain similar.    Not only that, but I think that most people can see the contradiction between wanting to serve the BBC free to air to people without TV Licences (which is effectively the difference between a Licence and a Subscription) and wanting to prosecute people without TV Licences for watching TV broadcasts.   From a practical POV, it makes no sense.  (Or at least it only makes sense where there is technically no other choice, but we aren't in that position any more).

slow_saver

I guess it's really up to people to decide if they value the BBC.... I pay my licence fee because I watch BBC programmes & listen to BBC radio.... If everyone decides to try & duck out of paying the licence fee the beeb will be lost. 
The only solution I can think of is for the BBC to offer a service with ads but if you pay a subscription the ads are turned off... I'm sure with the tech nowadays  that is possible....

Watchkeeper

slow_saver said:

... If everyone decides to try & duck out of paying the licence fee the beeb will be lost.

Music to my ears. As James Delingpole has said, "I want it [the BBC] burnt to the ground and I want the earth salted.  There is no hope".

BTW I'm no more "ducking out" of paying the BBC than I am "ducking out" of paying Netflix or any of the others. They're just not on my radar.

cw18

slow_saver said:

The only solution I can think of is for the BBC to offer a service with ads but if you pay a subscription the ads are turned off... I'm sure with the tech nowadays  that is possible....

And how do they fill the time used for adverts for the person who's paid to not see them?    If they just run the show right through, then the no adverts viewer will be ready for the next show 5-10 minutes earlier than the person who decides to suffer the ads......

Cornucopia

Broadcasters including the BBC have some experience of accommodating different variants of the same schedule.  

Commercial TV and Radio have always had regional ad-reels even when broadcasting the main content on a network basis.   These days it's seamless.

BBC TV already has fill-in elements like News Headlines and trailer blocks that could be substituted for ads.   

slow_saver

cw18 said:

slow_saver said:

The only solution I can think of is for the BBC to offer a service with ads but if you pay a subscription the ads are turned off... I'm sure with the tech nowadays  that is possible....

And how do they fill the time used for adverts for the person who's paid to not see them?    If they just run the show right through, then the no adverts viewer will be ready for the next show 5-10 minutes earlier than the person who decides to suffer the ads......

There would be a separate channel for the ad free version.... it would mean the unscrambled version would play in real time whereas the channel with ads would be delayed due to the ads... the BBC could do this with all of it's free to air channels (a bit like sky does)....  Otherwise what is the alternative? No BBC or no Ad free BBC at all?