To wonder if a TV license is worth it?

[PoesyCherish]

DP and I got rid of our TV license when we moved as the aerial was broken and we couldn't be bothered fixing it. We had no access to live Tv and since we weren't actually watching anything on BBC1 we didn't think it was worth it.

Now though I'm questioning that and wondering if we should get one again. I saw on here that the BBC have started a shop well for less programme. I loved eat well for less and would love to watch it. I also want to watch The apprentice soon.

Is it really worth it for the sake of being able to watch two programmes though?

I can't think of a single thing that is better value for money.

@user1472651064 - Now TV, Amazon Prime, Netflix are all imo better value for money.

What is Now TV? Do you pay for it?

@Itsmeaga1n yes you do pay for it. It's £9.99 per month for access to the entertainment programmes or the movies. We pay for the movies and they have a new film out every day plus on a Friday it's one of the big blockbusters. There are hundreds of films on there to watch or in the case of the entertainment one you get lots of different boxsets you can watch.

Thanks. Is it better than netflix?

@Itsmeaga1n personally I prefer Netflix. We've only just got Netflix on a one months free trial and I've already watched loads more on it than I do on Now TV. We're actually thinking of getting rid of our Now and just keeping Netflix.

The alternative to having the BBC, faults and all, is not just tv with adverts. Most of the rest of our media is not even UK owned. I wish the money raised from the licence fee was from a broader base so the fee would be less (a one-off phone, tablet and PC charge for example), but wish to keep the BBC.

We'll all be much worse off if the license fee ever goes. It saddens me that there are those who don't fully appreciate how lucky we are media-wise in this country. Every ill thought arguement towards getting rid of it moves us steadily towards a for-profit, biased world. The truest example of not knowing what we've got until it's gone.

We'll all be much worse off if the license fee ever goes.

How so? That's a genuine question as I really don't know what the disadvantages of not having it would be. I work with a number of American colleagues and they all think the concept of the TV license is utterly bizarre. Maybe like you say it's a case of not knowing what we've got until it's gone, or in the case of my American colleagues, not knowing what you're missing out on if you've never had it.

Your American colleagues have to get all their news via Rupert murdoch. How is that desirable?

Not worth it for me. I have a subscription to Mubi which lets me watch one new film every day and I listen to podcasts the rest of the time. I have niche tastes though, so not much appeals to me on TV/Sky/etc.

only £12/month? What a ripoff- amazon is £7/month and comes with a host of other services aside from the TV, and Netflix is £6/month. So basically for the same price you could have amazon prime (and enjoy free next day delivery, amazon music, amazon prime now, etc) as well as the Netflix offering for the same price.

The BBC is a rip-off. I don’t have a free view receiver and refuse to pay for the bloody thing on the basis that it’s nearly double the price of any other catch up provider!

I think everyone needs to look a the bigger picture here (no pun intended).

The BBC is the only station that makes minority programming (eg religious programmes, farming etc), and doesn't rely on advertising revenue, nor on viewing figures.

The range of programming is huge, and not just populist. You may not want to watch all of their output, but it does mean that programmes get made that would never see the light of day elsewhere (history and arts on BBC2 and BBC4 particularly).

And although you don't need a licence to listen to BBC radio, the license fee does fund the making of programmes. Again, a huge range of channels and programmes.

I for one would hate to live in a world of just Netflix; some programmes are okay, but many of them are just complete crap, and only made to make money.

That.

Can you imagine telly full of just the populist stuff? All that real life Love Island X Factor whatevery plus more Coronation Streets. And the news! Moan all you like, and I do as I have noticed some very odd rhetoric creeping in to the news scripts, but the thought of having US style news (often outright lies and obfuscation) and none of the odd niche programmes, is horrifying.

How quickly would many of thise free channels fold without the BBC, Yesterday and Dave for example, and all the others that recycle old BBC content? If it was shit they wouldn't buy it, wouldn't be popular and wouldn't exist!

It's totally worth it for me. We watch a lot of BBC programmes, they are excellent.
And although not needed for the radio we listen to radio 2 and 6 music an awful lot too (my husband listens to 6 all day at work)

The BBC produces excellent quality tv, no doubt. That’s why Netflix and amazon buy it for their offering. How about instead, they lower the licence fee to a competitive rate, modernise their management and staffing practices and compete at a similar level to the others?

It could make money at a sensible price (£6-£7/month) if it got rid of some of its ludicrously paid staff members (£2.5mil/year chris evans anyone?) or actually dialled back it’s ludicrous number of managers, or perhaps stopped paying its staff to travel from London to their place of work in Manchester.

The BBC suffers from the ailments of a publicly funded body- that is, it doesn’t actually have to produce content people like, or run it’s body in a competitive and efficient manner. However with the rise of catch up services and the fact that tv licence fee take is falling, it’s discovering that it’s old methods cannot last (thus Tony hall’s push for Australian style direct funding by the gvt, or legislation demanding everyone pays the tv licence).

If the BBC carries out work specifically in the British national interest (regulating air wave distribution etc although I suspect such work is probably carried out by OFCOM) then get direct funding for that work. The work they do broadcasting all the shipping information? Directly fund that from the gvt.

Otherwise it’s just another example of people suckling from the gvt teat and upset that their overpaid underworked lifestyle might be coming to an end. I would pay it if it was worth what I was getting for it, but for the same price I can get Netflix and amazon. Do I want to double my monthly tv cost for what it offers? No- I’d probably pay it if it was more like £5/£6 per month. But as it stands, in comparison to what is available, it is simply not good value for money.

How about instead, they lower the licence fee to a competitive rate, modernise their management and staffing practices and compete at a similar level to the others? But you just said that those others let the BBC bear the cost of commissioning then buy content cheaper than they would have had to pay to make it themselves.

It's a bit nonsensical to say the manufacturer of goods should reduce their prices because a secondary seller sells content for less when it is older, repeated or on a different kind of license.

I haven’t had one for years. Also haven’t watch the beeb for years and don’t miss it. Since they added the clause of needing one to watch catch up, I just gave up on it entirely.

I don’t watch much TV but when I do it’s mostly just Netflix, same for DC.

But you just said that those others let the BBC bear the cost of commissioning then buy content cheaper than they would have had to pay to make it themselves.

Did I? I don’t think I did- as others have pointed out BBC Worldwide was a profitable organisation selling shows like top gear and dr who- not because they sell it for less than it cost to produce (the production values on dr who frankly aren’t huge) but because having shown it fresh they then sell it on for repeats and make additional money back on that. If you considered their licence fee as the income for their products then they’re not really selling it cheap- they’re taking money for having made it and then selling the reruns for extra money- a good business move I should have thought.

And compared to some of the shows Netflix and amazon are producing at the moment BBCs costs are far lower- grand tour was a massively souped up top gear and cost a small fortune (and it shows) yet they only charge £6-£7/month. Netflix has a number of shows that it has produced which have really pulled in viewers (stranger things for example).

What I’m suggesting is the BBC don’t get paid to make content for content’s sake- they should compete to make content that people want to watch. Bing is a good example. I hate him but my daughter loves him, so we watch him on Amazon (and have purchased the seasons that aren’t available for free). BBC produced and if they had all of CBeebies available it would be a real draw for parents to keep their kids entertained (if amazon and Netflix didn’t offer what they do, and more, for the same price).

But hiddenmumnetter the profit on BBC worldwide is going back into the pot to make content. The cost of content is the licence fee plus the other income they generate. This is what’s subsidising the License fee. without that it could be £20,£30 a month

I don’t think it is though - I think that the BBC is complacent because they used to be able to rely on licence fees because there wasn’t an option. The fact is content CAN be produced profitably (see Netflix and Amazon) at a reasonable monthly fee. The BBC dont produce it efficiently because they have never had to, and thus their exhorbitant “star” wages and rediculoisly overmanaged business structure. It’s a public service that has had its monopoly removed and is struggling to adjust.

I’m not saying the BBC doesn’t produce good TV, I’m just saying it doesn’t produce it efficiently and effectively and is therefore not good value. It needs to be overhauled and the waste eliminated if they want people to choose to pay the licence (which, given on-demand streaming, is now a viable option)

I’m contesting that the cost of production is actually much smaller, what’s high is the high salaries and wasteful business structure they use, precisely because it’s a public service that had a reliable income, that is now slipping away.

But Netflix is a completely different service. It really has nothing in common with the BBC

I’ve asked virgin media why they charge £50 a month for their TV channels when I can get Netflix for £7 and I think that’s a fairer comparison. They’re nothing like the BBC

That’s not true- virgin isn’t a production company- all they do is resell what they’ve purchased. Netflix and Amazon resell what they’ve purchased but they also have their own production companies, that produce new and original content for their platforms, like the BBC. And while some of the BBC shows have good production quality (downton) it’s not like they’re going for spectacular budget busters like amazon do (grand tour). Downton was about £1 mil/episode, grand tour about £4 mil. Stranger things (Netflix) about £3 mil/episode. Man in the high castle (amazon) cost around £60 million to make. The Crown (Netflix) cost nearly £90 million to make.

So the fact of the matter is it is NOT the production costs that are keeping BBC licence fees high. BBC production costs are very low in fact- famously so: BBC productions I would say are marked by their low production costs and high quality acting and value (they look good for cheap).

See: www.digitalspy.com/tv/the-crown/news/a861363/bbc-netflix-spending-the-crown-cost-18-series

So why on earth are their charges so high?

That’s why I don’t think the BBC licence is good value- because if they modernised their business practice they could easily be making far more money charging a lot less. They would just have to stop being a public sector job that over supplies and overpay’s its management (and I’m sorry I do not understand why Chris Evans is worth what he was being paid. But to be fair he’s gone now and works for Virgin so at least the public aren’t subsidising him anymore).

I’ve asked virgin media why they charge £50 a month for their TV channels when I can get Netflix for £7 and I think that’s a fairer comparison. They’re nothing like the BBC

How are you paying £50 just for the Virgin TV channels? I don't pay much more than that and I get broadband and a phone line too.

Downton was ITV!

BBC runs a hell of a lot more than Netflix or Amazon does (even with their original content) and the stars don’t get paid as much as they do elsewhere (Chris Evans is getting a pay bump for leaving).

It’s like £12-15 a month,

We have just cancelled our tv package with one of the biggest providers, as in my smart tv only now streams stuff.

I love bbc documentaries, about history, art and the unexplained. There is also some fantastic comedies and funny panel shows!!

Unfortunately though the BBC. Has stopped putting everything on the iPlayer and restricting shows to be watched for a certain period of time... so they can sell it on to Netflix or Amazon..

If you can cope with missing out on popular shows for a year or so, then yes don’t pay if not make the most out of the bbc!

Now tv is just sky via internet rather than a dish. It’s cheaper though there are less entertainment programs.
Best thing to subscribe to though not tv is readly.

Your American colleagues have to get all their news via Rupert murdoch. How is that desirable?

How is the right wing BBC any different to RM's gutter shite these days?