Who should pay for the BBC?

Poll

Who should pay for the BBC?

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is running its own inquiry in order to inform the Government’s thinking and is keen to hear student's views on the way the BBC is funded.

Should the BBC services on TV, radio and the internet be available to all or only to those who pay? What’s your view?

Who do you think should pay for the BBC?

(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Mackay

It should, realistically, be everyone who uses it and nobody else.

Reply 2

Birkenhead

Original post by Mackay

It should, realistically, be everyone who uses it and nobody else.

There's nothing realistic about that, though. If we could already detect who watches BBC programmes and who doesn't we would have clamped down on license fee dodgers. Every tax-payer should contribute the same amount - that is at least a system we can realistically enforce.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3

Mackay

Original post by Birkenhead

There's nothing realistic about that, though.

I know, hence my use of the word.

Reply 4

Birkenhead

Original post by Mackay

I know, hence my use of the word.

I don't think you understand what 'realistically' means.

Reply 5

the-black-lotus

Is it even possible to have subscription-only radio stations?

Reply 6

DarkWhite

I think one of the problems the BBC and its relationship with the TV Licence faces is the shift away from TV as it is broadcast to on-demand using TV equipment, for two reasons:

1. With fewer people watching TV as it is being broadcast, people will require licences less, and whilst licence revenue increased slightly last year, I think it will peak as the younger generations realise they don't actually need a licence.

2. The medium through which people gain information and enjoy entertainment even on-demand is changing. When BBC News 24 started, it was one of the main ways of getting live news as updates come in regularly and it provides it in a format other than text, which is previously the only hypermedia used on the BBC News website for breaking news. Now when you see a shooting happen in Woolwich, there are live streams of commentary (text, audio, video) on the website, which you don't need a TV Licence for.

Radio you can't practically detect users; it would be a shame to see the website develop a paywall, you can't charge for following on Twitter or liking on Facebook, and the web is so content-rich that the need to watch things on TV as they are broadcast is reduced massively.

I guess I have two points to make. The first is around whether we should encourage more TV-as-it's-broadcast viewing, and if so how. I don't feel we should specifically try and change viewing behaviours purely for the purpose of licence fee revenue; I think that's the wrong way round - the revenue will come if you do what users want/need. There are however some innovate things I'd like to see the BBC experiment with more, such as interactive TV where you get to crowd-control what happens, and 'play along at home' activities like the app for Million Pound Drop.

The second is, finally, around who should pay. Given this shift away from TV, and the difficulty in preventing and tracking activity across a wide range of online, digital and radio services, I don't think the current model is long-term sustainable unless the BBC finds a way to retain live TV viewing figures. I also think the current model isn't progressive. If you're unemployed and looking for work, the BBC's documentaries, news, weather, current affairs, etc are useful, and I also don't think poor people should have their light entertainment taken away from them because they can't afford a TV Licence (it would be around 5% of many people's weekly JSA). It's hardly living the life of luxury having a TV, as the Daily Mail would like to portray. I also think that whilst not everybody purchases a TV Licence, almost everybody consumes BBC media in some form each year. Given that pretty much everybody does, and that it should be seen as a public service (after some reforms), I feel it should be paid for through general taxation.

Reply 7

username987675

I think even if you don't regularly watch it, nearly everyone would have flicked through channels and watched something on the BBC. Imo it should be paid for by adverts, more than happy to have adverts plastered over the BBC if it means no licence fee. Sure there would be some that would complain about adverts but it's hardly like they are going to stop watching the BBC because it has a few adverts (it would be no different to just about every other channel).

Reply 8

AbdulKoyes

I'd rather they abolish it entirely and just get adverts

Reply 9

SandmanMMA

I don't see why i should pay the licence because i want to watch family guy, everything else on the bbc is a joke, same with itv but at least they don't ****ing charge.

Reply 10

kumon

Everyone should pay 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 11

Jacob-C

I think most people use the BBC or its services everyday, sometimes they may do so without knowing. I'm not in favour of adverts as there is always a spin on things and then there would be nowhere that you could turn without being constantly bombarded by advertising.

The British are so good at throwing away things and then regretting it a few years down the line.

Reply 12

iam_smithers

Original post by kumon

That's not an argument for why everyone should be stolen from in order to pay for an organisation which does no benefit to them. Fox news being opinionated (as though the BBC isn't) is no argument whatsoever for why everyone should pay into the BBC, for Rupert Murdoch is entitled to have his news channel adopt any political slant he wants it to adopt. Just because it doesn't fit yours doesn't make it evil, it merely means that the Americans dare to allow free speech on their television where as we are stuck with a fake veneer of impartiality, so long as that impartiality doesn't question the prevailing ideology of statism.

It seems to me to be self evident that only those who use a given service, whatever that service is, ought to be made to pay for it. Anything else is nothing short of stealing from those who don't use it. If that presents a problem for the BBC in the realm of radio, then it can either pull the plug on the radio stations or run them on the same lines as local, advert funded, private radio stations.

Reply 13

Kernel_Coder

Original post by Birkenhead

That argument would apply if TV was still analog, it's pitifully easy to encrypt freeview channels. Many freeview channels are encrypted and require a subscription card to view. e.g BT Sport (Top up TV).

I think the only reason this has not been done is because the BBC know fully well that if people were given a fair choice in choosing to subscribe then their revenue would dtop significantly, especially considering other services e.g Netflix are much cheaper.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 14

Tyrion_Lannister

Can't take the initials "BBC" seriously :teehee:

Reply 15

Iggy Azalea

I never understood why we need the BBC. The only good thing on it is the News.

I don't plan to get a TV in the future, or I will get one but only for video game use. I therefore do not need to pay for a TV license and can get a years Netflix subscription for a third of the price. Even then, I can watch iPlayer (not the live version) for free too, so I'm not missing out on anything.

Reply 16

Kernel_Coder

In addition to my previous point, the notion of a TV license in 2014 astounds me. The whole argument could be ended by simply following these steps:

1. Encrypt BBC Freeview transmissions in the same way that Top up TV and similar services work for freeview, that way if you want to watch the BBC on Freeview, you pay for it directly. This would involve purchasing a subscription to the BBC and in return your Freeview box would be granted access to their channels. This system is already in place for many other services.

2. Restrict the use of live iPlayer streaming to customers who have signed up with an account and pay a subscription to the BBC.

The same thing could easily be done for anyone who receives satellite TV.

I suspect that the reason that this has not been done is because the BBC would see a significant drop in revenue if the consumer was given more choice.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 17

Greenlaner

Original post by kumon

You act as though having quality TV is some inalienable human right. Sorry, but it isn't. If TV shows become trash for some reason or another, then that's just tough ****. Either fork out more of your own money and lobby the providers to give better service, or just get over it and turn the thing off entirely. Who knows, you might even find it more enjoyable and fulfilling living more of your own life instead of spending hours infront of some glowing box watching other people living fake lives.