How do YOU think the BBC should be paid for?

Scroll to see replies

Quick related question, If BBC was funded through a subscription service of say £9.99 a month. Would you pay for it to get access to iplayer/BBC TV etc?

That'd be such a pain the ass to have to login to the paywalls. ._.
__________________________

Edit: I wouldn't be opposed to having adverts on BBC Three as long as they adhered to the BBC's Broadcasting Code and were more tasteful than the **** you can get on commercial channels.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 81

JRFishers

TV license IMO is annoying, only people who actually want to watch the BBC should have to pay..

Reply 82

James222

Eastenders and Citizen Khan is single handily responsible for creating a ugly and backward looking streotype of muslims across England in popular culture.
CBBC is showing repeats of TV shows from 10 years ie lack of investment.

BBC News has been proven to use too many ex army and military sources when reporting on events such as iraq war.

Abolish the BBC and stop politicians using it to subsidise their media operations.

Reply 83

James222

Original post by Roving Fish

Your complaining about logging in ??? That takes like 3 seconds ? netflix and sky go work with a log in system

Reply 84

Roving Fish

Original post by James222

Your complaining about logging in ??? That takes like 3 seconds ? netflix and sky go work with a log in system

Are Netflix and Sky Go public broadcasters?

Reply 85

username402722

A combination of a number of sources- a one-off fee for all devices that can receive BBC output (so tablets, phones, and radios would be included, for example), the licence fee (which would be less given the other sources), and government funding for some of the output such as weather forecasts and the World Service.

Reply 86

James222

Original post by Roving Fish

Are Netflix and Sky Go public broadcasters?

Why does public or private have to do with logging in

After the next review the bbc iplayer and all channels minus BBC News will start a transition to suscription model I guarentee it. The political support has gone snd scandals left it weak.

Why should i pay for welsh language TV and foriegn language World service formerly run by the foriegn office

Reply 87

sam del rey

I'd be devastated if the BBC had adverts. Having no adverts is it's thing.

Reply 88

Kabloomybuzz

I don't actually watch tv. We don't have a licence and use our TV as a computer monitor, we download and stream films, and a select amount of TV shows that we want to watch (dr who & grimm most recently) that way. The TV is so full of crap and I challenege anyone to stop watching any tv for a week and see if you notice how biased and rubbish the vast majority is.

Back to the question, as far as I'm concerned, the TV licence contract is null and void as the BBC are supposed to provide unbiased, reliable and relevant information and programming. Thats what we're paying for. Are we getting that? Hell no. People have actually fought this point in court and won.

If the BBC aren't providing what they promise and what they want us to pay for, they need to either do so, or scrap the licence and find another means of funding such as advertising and stop penalising people who want to watch other channels and may not be interested in the BBCs programming.

Reply 89

simplylldxo

I voted for adverts. TV Licences are pointless; you pay enough for your TV package from your provider as it is without having to pay another fee so you can actually watch it.

I don't agree with the subscriptions as not everybody can record the shows if they don't have facilities to do so; nor should it be up to the taxpayers to pay for people to watch TV - although we do that anyway for the dole dossers with their 50" 3D Plasma TVs :wink:

Reply 90

Roving Fish

Original post by James222

Logging in requires a data capture, this data is often used for marketing or for pay walls. Targeted marketing is something that the BBC shouldn't be budgeting for. The BBC doesn't produce enough 'rated' content to be able to build this system for parental controls (there is an existing cookie-based system for parental restriction).

The BBC is widely regarded for its excellence in broadcasting and forms part of the British identity. Making any changes starts to alter that reputation in the world.

The BBC iPlayer would be an extremely stupid thing to put on a subscription model. In January 2014, there were 315,000,000 requests for content so it is clearly very popular. The only way that people would accept this would be if BBC iPlayer offered past seasons. This would require both more datacentres for the amount of data processed and probably a lot more cash needed to pay for rights to host it online.

As for BBC channels moving to a subscription model. Channels fulfill most of their remits. BBC One and Two are very popular and watched by all spectrums of the population. BBC Three could rack up a lot more viewership if the content was more original than repeated, for instance it'll tend to run all programming twice before the station shuts down in time for the CBBC channel to start broadcasting.

Part of me thinks that BBC Three and Four could be put into the private BBC company (this exists already) to join the global BBC News service (this may be BBC World Service?, anyway it already has ads if viewing from abroad) and be self-sufficient- Channel 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster publicly owned but running self-sufficiently. I wouldn't be opposed to advertising on those channels. If Cbeebies and CBBC were privatised then there'd be an urgency to keep them ad free which would mean that they would have to run at a loss. Perhaps Cbeebies and CBBC could be behind a TV pay wall?

The Welsh and Scottish governments should have to pay for the running of BBC Alba & Cymru. Up to them how they fund that.

If the TV Licence was easier to pay and cheaper then I think that more people would pay it. It's such a pain in the ass to deal with the TV Licencing people - I'd rather deal with SFE on a bad day! How much money is spent on pursuing student halls? I had a letter WAITING FOR ME despite not having moved in to tell me that I had a TV and needed to pay a licence. No, piss off. With Car Tax becoming easier to pay, the TV Licence should be too.

TV providers (Sky, Virgin etc) should be enforced legally to incorporate the TV licence into their fees to ensure that at least all those customers are paying.

I'd prefer options in this order:
*Simplified* TV licence
\/
Existing TV licence
\/
Part privatised with adverts on some services
\/
All content locked behind paywalls and subscriptions

Reply 91

username91207

Original post by Motorbiker

Same.

Quick related question, If BBC was funded through a subscription service of say £9.99 a month. Would you pay for it to get access to iplayer/BBC TV etc?

Yea but maybe use the increased money to have more channels so the same amount in total?

I hear Top Gear selling overseas makes millions each year. Add in Doctor Who and others and we should be able to get BBC for free soon. :tongue:

Do you know where that money currently goes? Is that not included in the BBC budget already?

Well it kind of is. I pay £12.12 a month for my TV licence. Absolute bargain if you ask me.

Reply 92

kumon

Everyone should pay for the bbc otherwise you end up with a Fox News type piece of trash in the long run as it's owned by fewer people and the quality decreases so private vested interests step in.

BBC for everyone.

Reply 93

iam_smithers

Original post by nautical_negro

I like that you don't get mind-numbing capitalist mass distraction adverts on the BBC. If people don't want to pay for the privilege to watch some of the greatest TV their is, then they should miss out.

I'd pay the license fee just to watch the documentaries the BBC produce. Granted its not all TV gold, but without it we wouldn't have David Attenborough, Top Gear, Horizon, The Office, Fawlty Towers, Sherlock, Blackadder, Doctor Who or Monty Python.

Good for you. Then pay for it yourself then rather than forcing all of us to pay for the BBC, even if we don't watch any of its output and only rarely watch TV anyway. The license fee is plain and simple extortion backed up by no principle or logic. Yes, there is sense in having those who watch television pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure necessary to keep the system operational, and yes there was logic in the license fee in the days before we had the means to record programmes and before there was even any other provider of television other than the BBC. That world has long since gone, and yet the license fee remains.

You say that the logic is that it produces quality programming? So what? That's just an opinion (one I vehemently disagree with) and has no bearing on the actual argument at issue. Perhaps you might say that the BBC produces content which could not be done on a commercial basis. Again, so what? If the BBC could not support itself on a commercial basis, it should not be protected from that by the extortion of the license fee model. No cultural or other organisation (like, say, a bank) that cannot support itself on a commercial or charitable basis should receive any money from the state to prop it up, and it certainly should not be made the subject of a special new tax that applies to everyone, no matter whether they avail or that organisation's services or not.

Whether that means a subscription model or an advertisement model really makes no difference. The point is that the TV license should not exist and either those who watch the BBC should pay for it themselves, or the BBC should find some way of being commercially viable without the support of stolen money (all tax being a form of theft).

Original post by Alfissti

Absolutely.

We can't forever be making exceptions to this and that.

We don't have an option to not pay for the NHS even if we don't use it.

Which is why it should be privatised.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 94

Jacob-C

Original post by James222

Abolish the BBC and stop politicians using it to subsidise their media operations.

You'll never stop politicians from using the media. Have you ever seen Fox News? They are far worse than the BBC for pushing certain political agendas and could become a reality without the BBC there.

Reply 95

Jacob-C

Through paying the license fee. If you do not want to watch the BBC then do not pay the license fee, if you do then you will be contributing to an institution which is globally recognised and a symbol of Britain. Programmes such as Top Gear, Doctor Who and others generate a huge amount of revenue through outsourcing, so we get this money back which then goes back into the country in some way. Not to mention it is one of the very few media outlets not owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Reply 96

James222

Original post by Jacob-C

What I meant was the govt of the day has too much influence on content such as the BBC is the only major media group to use the proper terminology for the bedroom tax even pro tory papers call it the bedroom tax. The entire culture of the BBC is to give deference to authority and the Government .

So my point is more than just media bias, its parliament has to much power on a multi billion dollar media platform from choosing the Head or starting committee reports into its content.

I also dont think the BBC is value for money. BBC also has a false reputation of being impartial and people trust its every word which is quite dangerous.

Fox News ? We already have the daily mail and OFCOM regulations regulate tv even if the BBC goes away

Reply 97

James222

Original post by Jacob-C

Its globally recognised because its so powerful and has so many resources not because of its genius investigative reporting like Vice or the Daily Show.

Top gear and Dr Who has very old shows pre 80s when hardly any private sector media. When is the most recent time the BBC produced a top show.

What revenue ? I dont see any benefit in reduced license fee or new content.

Most TV shows are made by independent production companies. British Films generate huge amounts of cash and the creative industry in the UK would do just fine, it would probably prefer 6 billion in tax cuts than sad old toffs at the BBC

Maybe because the BBC forces the rest of them into Bankruptcy and only Murdoch with his american revenue can survive in a market where his main rival have a huge cash advantage. ITV isnt struggling because of competition from murdoch. Channel4 which is also owned by the govt does fine with out murdoch

Reply 98

gagaslilmonsteruk

In France TV licence is included in your yearly tax bill.

I personally think if BBC want to keep things as they are, then charge viewers for BBC World News and BBC Entertainment channels on the continent, as well as BBC America. I wouldn't be surprised if France Televisions and RTBF (the BBC for Wallonia, French-speaking Belgium basically) charged a subscription fee (alongside Romandie and Quebec) for their services to TV5Monde (Channel 799 on Sky). France Televisions and RTBF own 60% between them with other networks from other francophone countries owning the remainder between them. We should enforce the same. In fact there is a UK Gold channel in Australia and NZ which uses shows from ITV and Channel 4 as well.

Reply 99

James222

Original post by Roving Fish

Well the BBC doesnt have to target market from its customers data if it doesnt want to.

BBC iplayer as you mentioned is popular, no reason why people would not be willing to pay for it. Not enough content you say need more data centre?? Let the market decide, force people to up their game. You get access to 4 channels and a catchup service people who like the BBC should pay.

BBC three a few months ago was showing Gavin and Stacey SERIES 1 !!! Thats like 5 years old. BBC world service is not bbc news its stuff like BBC arabic or BBC Persia designed to promote british Foreign policy to iranians and arabs

BBC reputation around the world is absolutely dreadful , the BBC is very unpopular. It loved by the yanks because their media is far worse. The BBC has power and money so of course it will have a reputation and strong brand name around the world as does British Airways or the English Football League.
Reputation and wealth go hand in hand, the bbc has not performed some feat or achievement by being popular it should given how large it is. It only forms a part of the british identity because the bbc has tricked you into thinking that. The BBC is no more a part of the British Identity than a third runway at Heathrow or Trident. What makes Britain is its people and history not corporations

Yes the welsh and Scottish govt should pay but that wont happen, the license fee is just used as a stealth tax for Government policy. Its not a proper consumer service or product you pay for ie not value for money.

The license fee cases clog up Courts and unethical scare tactics. Its quite easy to pay but people rightly dont want to.

Haha why ? The BBC sucks cant get its audience to pay so you want to bail out the BBC by getting sky customers to pay. For the record every time you buy a TV from say comet, they inform the BBC.

The only + the bbc has is no adverts.