the BBC isn't it time we just got shot of it?

[southeastastra]

it's very middle class blue peter biased in my view

not to mention the cover ups of late

i know that the majority wouldn't agree but a subscription service for radio 4 etc would ensure that's continuity

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

Well you do get a 25% council tax reduction if you are a single person in a home, so...

The fact is that some things we do as a nation benefit the nation as a whole and not just selfish-minded arseholes who don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves

Seriously? This is TV we are talking about here, not world peace.

I've asked a valid question, but rather than answer people are just reverting to insults. Is that because what I am suggesting is actually right? Why is it wrong to suggest that the people that want it should be the ones to pay for it?

Are the 96% who watch BBC 'selfish arseholes' for expecting the 4% who dont to pay for it as well?

This is TV we are talking about here, not world peace

Heroine,

"The fact is that some things we do as a nation benefit the nation as a whole and not just selfish-minded arseholes who don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves. "

This is arrant hypocrisy. Why should truly poor people subsidise rich people's television viewing. The BBC is a poll tax, nothing more, nothing less. The selfish are those who believe their right to watch expensively and wastefully made costume drama trumps poor people's right to feed their children. For some people, believe it or not, the TV license is a significant budgetary item.

"Of course its stupid to say that everyone has to pay for everything they do. That is playing an individual game, but negates all the structural and cultural factors that give some people the platform to make money and not others."

This is a complete straw man and is just an argument for having some form of tax system. I don't think this thread is about that.

The questions that need to be asked are do we want public service broadcasting and, if we do, what do we want it for? Do we really need the multipurpose overpriced behemoth that we have? And, once we have answered that question, we need to ask how to fund it. Why is it one of the only public services hypothecated out of general taxation? The historic reason is that you could opt out if you chose not to have a TV (and BBC WAS most of, if not all of, TV when the license first came in). Nowadays, there is the perfectly reasonable option of having a TV but not desiring the BBC product.

Still, no response to the question as to how a poll tax can be justified for this....

I would have thought poorer families would watch more telly and more free programming than better off families (who may have more options) not less ?

I know television is a major form of entertainment in our family, and we only have Freeview as wouldn't really feel we could afford packages such as Sky or whatever. When we've had to tighten our belts as in current recession where working hours have been reduced for us this is even more the case.

I see what you are saying Juggling - but I don't agree.

If BBC was subscription only, then the poorer families would only have to fork out about £25.00 for a freeview box to get what, 20 extra channels? Whereas they now have to fork out £145.00 every year for 4 extra channels.

We've got Sky at the moment because we can afford it, but as soon as my contract is up we are going to cancel it and buy a Freeview box/TV.

Yes, that seems a good point LtEve

what are you talking about? you say 96% of people use the bbc, but you have a problem with the majority of the country being asked to pay for bbc?

Oh jeez there is some dull thinking on this thread.

1. Freeview is only 'free' because of the supported broadcasting network paid for by the BBC.
2. If 96% of people watch BBC then it would certainly be included in satellite packages anyway, but with no blanket charge would have to cost more than £10 per month to be included.
3. PLUS you would have to charge for 'freeview'.

The fact is that the BBC produces good programming because a lot of people pay a little.

Sky on the other hand charges a lot to fewer people, and nearly all Sky subscribers watch BBC channels regularly taking advantage also of many people paying a little.

With a 'pay for' model, at 96% use, the payments would be spread out throughout roughly the same number of people anyway, so what's the beef?

I have to say, these Sky sock-puppets pedalling James Murdoch's first year Harvard analysis are really unimpressive.

Heroine, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you actually know what a sock puppet is?

I am in favour of a subscription based BBC. I do not think it is fair that people who do not use any of the BBCs 'products' have to pay a Licence Fee. I believe that you should only have to pay for the TV you watch.

In my case, right now, most of the shows I watch come via Sky, some via Ch's 4 and 5. I pay for Sky because I want to, that is my choice. I don't watch BBC TV, that is also my choice.

Someone earlier said that according to the BBC, 96% of the country watch their programmes. I believe that those users should pay the Licence Fee.

You say we are 'asked' to pay the Licence Fee'. We are not. It is demanded of us, whether we use the services or not, and we can be criminalised for not doing so.

That does not make me 'dull thinking'. I would suggest that it is 'dull thinking' if you have to revert to insults.

Heroine, afraid you are soiling nonsense, as usual.

Freeview is equally funded by Sky, BBC, Channel4, ITV etc. If BBC moves to a subscription model, it will have no impact on Freeview.

Sky is a large contributor to technological advancements in Freeview. For example, see www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/7319547/Freeview-boss-Ilse-Howling-Its-time-to-take-HDTV-mainstream.html

I don't work for Sky or have any interests in any broadcasting, outside that of a consumer.

Soling...I mean talking.

I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways - you seem to be advocating a system of only paying for what you are watching, but you are certainly not doing this with Sky, you pay a subscription which subsidises the whole network, and most certainly charges you more for the programs you watch than it needs to.

The other thing to bear in mind is that TV is not like buying Mars Bars. The SKY model is to charge subscribers a good deal more than the BBC charges them, but it is not charging them to make programs - in fact it could provide the services for free - it is effectively allowing them to pay for the privilege of being sold on as advertising audiences to advertisers without any of that value as a consumer coming back to them as customers.

In effect SKY's customers are only customers in the sense that they have to consume product so advertisers will continue to give money to SKY. They are not customers in the sense that they could, for example, choose to buy the programme but not the advertising. They are tied into that deal because that is how SKY makes its money. This also means, of course, that SKY can have their programming dictated to far quicker and more powerfully by the advertisers than the viewers.

The perfect end-game for SKY is to have no-one else in the market, so that they don't even have to bother with quality. luckily we have the BBC as a brake on that both in terms of distribution of signal (freeview is a great example.. and the legislative obligation to all broadcasters to contribute isn't as you seem to want to imply and example of lovely fluffy generous SKY, it is an example of the influence of many broadcasters, regulators, and the BBC on the government) and in terms of maintaining quality in the market when the major producers really couldn't give a monkey's about advancing quality, reporting integrity etc as long as you watch and consume.

In a market with massive barriers to entry and such political influence and control over information itself, it is incredibly dangerous to allow an aggressive, unethical player like SKY dominate purely because it has cash to do so. It is interesting that SKY really likes protected controlled markets when it enters them, but campaigns vociferousy against market protection and control when it acheives dominant critical mass. None of that is motivated by program quality I'm afraid.

OK, so I now know why you don't like Sky, but that doesn't answer my question.

I pay for Sky because I can afford to and I am happy to. In 2 years time there is a chance I wont be able to afford to. At which point I will cancel my subscription, and not watch the shows I currently watch. I will miss them, but they are a luxury (not a necessity).

Sky will not expect me to pay for a service I am not using. Once I no longer uses their services they no longer charge me.

I don't watch BBC. I dont use iplayer, or listen to BBC radio.
Now tell me why I should continue to pay for a service I am not using.

I have already said that I would happily pay the £1.40 (or whatever it was without scrolling back up) for the 'Investment in New Technology' but as most of the Licence is for services I live without, why should I pay for it?

I understand why some people like the BBC. I understand why some people hate adverts, I understand that some people like the type/quality and style of BBC programmes and so on. That's great, let the people that enjoy it, that think the BBC is worth it pay for it. Let the rest of us opt out.

well, the deal is that if you want to watch any live tv, you pay the TV licence. You can watch no tv and pay nothing. That's the way the market works. Why whinge about it?

Why whinge about anything? The BBC is wrong to expect people to pay for their crap whether they want to or not. It's not the 1940s anymore. People have choice of hundreds of channels.

"I don't watch BBC. I dont use iplayer, or listen to BBC radio."

Is that a matter of principle or do you genuinely not find anything at all you want to watch or listen to?

I find the BBC offers a huge range of programming - drama, comedy, documentaries, magazine style programmes, soaps, cookery shows, quizzes, sport, music, culture, news, etc. I find it difficult to believe that there is absolutely nothing at all that appeals.

"Oh jeez there is some dull thinking on this thread. "

Yes, indeed there is!

"With a 'pay for' model, at 96% use, the payments would be spread out throughout roughly the same number of people anyway, so what's the beef?"

The 96% use is because it is ALREADY PAID FOR. Most people will have a look at something that they have to pay for. The marginal cost is then zero. Well, if an economic good of any quality is free, most people will "buy" it; no shit Sherlock!

I wonder how many people would subscribe to most of BBC on a voluntary model?

The mystery is why 4% of TV viewers would pay a license and then never watch it?!

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

Wow, then you obviously didn't talk to many Americans...

Hey Bunbaker, no it's not on principle. I suppose I just don't watch that much TV. I may catch 15 mins of news before I go to work (so choose Sky News simply for the quick segments), then I don't sit down at home again until after 2000 (after DD is in bed). At the weekends its much the same, except instead of going out to work I'm 'working' in the home!

At that point I tend to just veg out - so something simple or a series I have become interested in fits the bill. I like a good murder , Sci-Fi, police procedural or fantasy, stuff like that. Most of the shows I watch are American, fast moving and easy watching.

I have Sky Plus, so series link lots of shows that I can watch when I have an hour to myself. I can FF through the adverts and watch 2 episodes before I go to bed.

I don't like soaps, reality, costume dramas or 'things with presenters' - I like nature programmes, but shows like countryfile or autumnwatch irritate me simply because of how 'earnest' the presenters are.

Most of the shows I watch are American, fast moving and easy watching.

No wonder you don't like the BBC then! Must be a bit too quality... I'm American and cannot stand the rubbish on American TV.

Ok, again with the digs - is there any need to be so rude?

The snobbery linked to the BBC is astounding. ALL TV is dross. There is no need to watch TV at all. We do it because we like it, not because we have to.

I enjoy shows like The Walking Dead, NCIS, CSI etc. I think the 'quality' of the acting and production is very good - no worse than the quality of acting or production of shows produced by the BBC.

I doubt it would survive.

Subscription fee would go up, more drop out, go up again. If the number of viewers lag behind the cost then it keeps pricing people out.

Atm if you watch a couple of programmes a small fee is fine.

I agree there is no need to be rude. What people like to watch is a matter of personal taste. I watch a lot of BBC programmes because I like them - police crime drama (especially those dark Scandinavian ones), period drama, cookery shows, comedy - HIGNFY and QI, documentaries, nature programmes (which I think the BBC excel at) plus several others, and DD loves CBBC.

We don't have Sky and don't want it. I hate reality TV, soaps and sport, but don't complain about them because I know where the off button is, besides there is more to life than watching TV.

I do watch commercial channels as well, but usually record them so I can fast forward through the adverts.