Mumsnet Talk

We have been abroad for three of the last four Olympic Games. This time we got bbc coverage, for that alone I am convinced I never want to lose it.

It has some shite on it, but at least there are no effing ads.

I don't want adverts int he middle of my programmes.
The BBC generally have the best programmes and are generally a higher standard imo. We watch BBC channels fr more than any others.
The difference between watching the Olympics on the BBC and the Paralympics on C4 was massive!

I have never suffered fools gladly.

Team Heroine.
I love the BBC. Yes it can be crap at times and waste money. But when it's good, it's very good.
It's the envy of the world. Why make it ordinary?

I don't know any one who envies BBC. And I have lived in five countries over three continents.

No one has given a reasoned argument yet on why the BBC funding should not move to a subscription or donation model.

If BBC is great, then people will subscribe or donate to keep it going
If it is the ads free part is so appealing, then people subscribe or donate to keep it that way

I suspect you know that BBC is neither great nor particularly appealing. And that if we give people choice, they will vote with their money for a trimmed down BBC, at best.

All my American friends envy the BBC!

I'm sick of paying for rubbish i don't like watching I.E Eastenders for starters and i think there should be more flexibility in what you view like different packages.
I'm also very upset with the lack of sport the BBC put on , they seem to be losing all the decent things to view

lack of sport?? Pisses me off when both channels (1 & 2) have it on simultaneously.....

"Folk around the world" don't matter, they don't have to pay the licence fee. We do. The BBC should serve the people of Britain, not "people around the world".

I live in continental Europe where we have BBC 1 & 2 (thank god!) and we certainly do pay for it in our subscription.

Like my dad used to say "there is no free lunch"...

Do you really think that with Sky you only pay for what you watch?!

Imagine if it did? Channel Five might buy Doctor Who. That in itself is the most disturbing and dark thought I've had for a whole...

Heroine "I have never suffered fools gladly"

As I assume that you believe you are not a fool - can you give a reasoned arguement?

No one has given a reasoned argument yet on why the BBC funding should not move to a subscription or donation model

If BBC is great, then people will subscribe or donate to keep it going

If it is the ads free part is so appealing, then people subscribe or donate to keep it that way

The BBC's own report suggests that 96% of the UK actively watch BBC channels. So only 4% of the UK would, in that case, NOT subscribe.

Now that everyone is Digital, it would be easy to 'block' channels from non-subscribers televisions. This would also free up the money spent on 'catching' those without licences. If consumers didn't subscribe - they wouldn't receive the service.

In 2011, the BBC spent £2,351million (66% of the licence fees collected) on TV. That is a awful lot of money, and I'd be quite interested to see how much of that money went on the actual programmes; there seems to be a high quantity of repeats on BBC.

"The BBC's own report suggests that 96% of the UK actively watch BBC channels. So only 4% of the UK would, in that case, NOT subscribe."

That's a very strange statement!

Surely you don't really believe that if it was a subscription service, 96% of people would subscribe?! The figure would be much, much lower than that and it would change the nature of the BBC entirely.

Don't forget that it's not just the BBC that benefits from license fees, but the other "terrestrial" channels too.

Surely you don't really believe that if it was a subscription service, 96% of people would subscribe?!

Why not? Most of the people on this thread seem to think that the BBC is the bees knees, so why wouldn't they?

Unless of course its not actually good enough to pay for?

If people are already paying a Sky/Virgin subscription for the channels they want to watch, the BBC could be added to that. If people do not watch BBC, they could be blocked. Same for iPlayer / BBC Online services etc.

I don't however, have the answer to BBC radio - I don't know how that would be paid for. I suppose they would have to instigate a Radio Licence

But the whole point is that it doesn't have to chase the subscriber base. To cater for the widest audience. It can do stuff like buy some obscure Danish serial and put it on bbc4, let 6 oxbridge graduates loose for 3 hours of strangeness, make calm children's programming and let Eddie Mair intelligently question people.
Subscription would lead to safe decisions and vanilla programming.

Still don't get it.

Are you all happy for an unelected quango to decide what is good for your viewing and charge you for it? Why?

How about a national theatre license where some of the National Theatre and Old Vic (+ other main regional theatres) are government run and they can pay management and actors whatever they like? Might lead to more adventurous scheduling and more access to the theatre?

Unless you are an unreconstructed Soviet era communist, I cannot see any justification for the BBC. "I like what it puts on" is not very convincing to me. I may well like going to the National and would like it even more if everyone else had to share in my ticket price, regardless of whether they went or not.

Elections tend to lead to the most mainstream, middle of the road policies being chosen - the ones that appeal to the broadest mass of people.

In the world of broadcasting, commercial stations already moderate their output to appeal to the broadest audience, in order to maximise their advertising revenue. I'm not sure we need the BBC to do the same just because the safest policies win an election.

Pip,

"No taxation without representation"...ring a bell from somewhere?

Just saying that elections wouldn't necessarily lead to high quality innovative programming.

OP, you would honestly change your tune if you lived outside the UK for a while. With all its flaws, the BBC produces outstanding quality programs and these have to be funded from somewhere. Commercial TV in Oz is just shite! Endless How I met your Mother type rubbish. All the best BBC progs get sold here cos Australia makes very little quality TV. The BBC is a national treasure.

Heroine, in amongst your nastiness, have you got time to answer my question above?

Kinda stupid to suggest that 96% of the population would subscribe to the BBC, do you think 96% of people would continue to pay income tax at present levels if the weren't forced to by law, no, many people just say f* it.

So why should the 4% who DON'T watch it have to subsidise the 96% that DO watch it?

Surely if the BBC is that good, then people would WANT to subscribe to it?

And if it's not that good, if it's not good enough to pay for, then why have it?

Kinda stupid to suggest that people pay for a service they are using? Really?

OK. I'm really healthy. Shall I reduce my tax contribution because I don't use the NHS as much as other people?

I have one child. Shall I pay less council tax and other taxes because I only require one school place?

Stupid arguments really aren't they?