To think they should scrap TV licence and advertise?

[pinkunicornsparkles]

I wouldn't care if there were adverts on the BBC. I would prefer it actually, so that I wouldn't have to fork out for a TV licence every year.

They should have scrapped TV licences years ago. When you work full time, on a nat min wage, you can barely afford to eat. Having to buy a TV licence is practically impossible, especially if there’s only one wage coming in. Life is one long struggle for so many.

And they do advertise already, their own programs usually. Not sure if they do product placements too? DH watches the weather and that's about it.

I think the BBC fee is expensive. It should be less than £100 per year, to keep it in line with Netflix.

I noticed 4 catch up are offering ad free viewing for £7.99 a month, so may be the BBC fee should be dropped to around that, to keep it competitive.

The commercial channels are about to be allowed even more ad breaks every hour. Even more reason for some ad free channels.

The amount of people saying they don't watch the BBC but they do watch Netflix - do you never watch any BBC funded and produced shows on Netflix then?
Never use the BBC weather online? Never follow BBC breaking news on twitter? Their content isn't limited to a live TV broadcast.

I noticed 4 catch up are offering ad free viewing for £7.99 a month, so may be the BBC fee should be dropped to around that, to keep it competitive.

That's £96 a year, compared to £154 a year for the license fee. But as far as I'm aware, Channel 4 doesn't provide any radio stations or other extensive services like the BBC does. That c4 fee is just for catch up, not live TV. And that fee is on top of the subsidy C4 gets from the license fee. So how is it better value?

Having to buy a TV licence is practically impossible, especially if there’s only one wage coming in. Life is one long struggle for so many.

Nobody is entitled to watch live TV... don't watch TV if you can't afford the license, maybe? If there wasn't a license fee their wouldn't be many free to air channels worth watching (since the BBC has an agreement not to take advertising revenue from the other channels, if they did, then other channels would have less advertising revenue and their quality would fall too), nor any funded infrastructure to support the live broadcasts, so those people would still have to pay for some sort of subscription service to use the TV (that they somehow managed to buy).

Do you think the BBC allow Netflix,show their Dramas out of the Goodness of their hearts littlewriggler?

Imagine a computer licence and in return you got the BBC website. Happy with that?

A better analogy would be that you buy a computer and can't use the Internet just by switching it on, and have to pay a license fee or for a subscription service. But we do, because we have to pay BT line rental as part of broadband fees whether we use a land line for calls or not. So we pay both a fee and a subscription to use the Internet. Computers don't give you content for free and we're still subjected to adverts online...

@pinkunicornsparkles

It’s not the adverts, it’s the fact that it’s unbiased. As soon as we don’t pay for it, it isn’t. (Just waiting for everyone left wing to pile in about right wing bias and everyone right wing to pile in about their left wing bias.)

Unbiased??? You're joking, right? Every programme has its bias, on all channels. The BBC is no different.

Op, YANBU, they should definitely scrap the tv licence.

Do you think the BBC allow Netflix,show their Dramas out of the Goodness of their hearts littlewriggler?

No but they are partly funded by the license fee, aren't they? Netflix can only buy what the BBC have already funded and made...

For a very substantial fee I bet!

Are people seriously suggesting that Channel 4,.5 ITV and Sky news are presenting biased news because they are funded by advertising?

As far as I can see all channels produce the same lazy sensationalised rewritten press releases and celeb-fests.

The only difference on BBC News is they concentrate on turning their own programmes into "news" and ITV does theirs etc

The commercial channels are about to be allowed even more ad breaks every hour. Even more reason for some ad free channels.

I don't mind the odd ad break - I like some of the funny ads and cup of tea or toilet break can be welcome. However if they get annoyingly samey ads or there are too many as we have sky all that happens is we pause for a bit then skip through ads.

So it's counter productive to have too many - though program sponsors ones at start and end of program sections are usedful to get stopped and restarted at right points.

ven more reason for some ad free channels

Or a paid streaming service.

As far as I can see all channels produce the same lazy sensationalised rewritten press releases and celeb-fests.

I have to admit that seems to be more an issue what ever channel or medium you used - radio and papers are as bad as TV news for it.

Though TV one I hate is where they have a reporter on site of something for no good reason as they don't know anything more - often then commentating on what the studio staff are telling them is happening.

I can easily believe that someone never watches BBC.

DD only watches Netflix, YouTube vids and the odd Amazon Prime show.

Yet I'd be prepared to bet that at least some of the programmes she watches so expensively on subscription channels originated on the BBC.

And they do advertise already, their own programs usually.

That's only for a short time between programmes, when we need a break anyway to go to the loo/put the kettle on etc. They don't have several long interruptions during every programme as the commercial channels do, thank goodness.

Exactly @familycourtq I've seen the BBC presenting the Strictly line up as 'news'. I find Channel 4 news more rigorous in terms of actual news stories.

Netflix can only buy what the BBC have already funded and made

The BBC doesn't fund and make every programme it shows. They are often made by other studios and the BBC buys them. Sometimes it will commission the programmes but even researching who Peaky Blinders is made by indicates it was funded by Screen Yorkshire via the Yorkshire Content Fund (which uses lottery grants). I guess they take a gamble to produce a series and then sell it to a broadcaster and make a return that they can reinvest. So not everything is the amazing BBC funding and paying for the shows you watch.

I love the fact that I can turn on Radio 4 at virtually any time of day and hear something interesting, even if it's not something I would normally have made a point of listening to. That's worth the licence fee on its own.

Yet I'd be prepared to bet that at least some of the programmes she watches so expensively on subscription channels originated on the BBC

Netflix seem to get BBC stuff a year later than aired, i don't pay the TV license, so don't have a way of watching live TV, season 4 of inside number 9 has just recently been added to Netflix.

£154.50 a year
Vs about £83
I can wait a year for the saving.

I love the fact that I can turn on Radio 4 at virtually any time of day and hear something interesting, even if it's not something I would normally have made a point of listening to. That's worth the licence fee on its own.

I do wonder with their podcasts whether that could go subscription service as well.

I like radio 4 as there is a lot of good stuff but there's pleaty on their I dislike as well

Yet I'd be prepared to bet that at least some of the programmes she watches so expensively on subscription channels originated on the BBC

Nope. None of them so far: Stranger Things, Riverdale, Black Mirror, Lucifer, Supernatural, when they see us, 13 reasons why and Atypical.

And they aren't expensive. I pay 7.99 a month for Netflix so £96. Amazon is 'free' because I always buy Prime - admittedly it would be more expensive if I was only buying it for the TV (I think it's currently about £70/year?)

Some people just don't watch that much tv.
They do other things like read books or play games or have a hobby.

I haven't got round to watching any this month which is not unusual & quite a few days in the week my son doesn't bother to turn the tv on either.
We don't have any BBC stations programmed into the radio either.

A tv licence costs over £12 a month.
If you do not have the money to pay for it all in one go, then you have to pay about £25 a month for the first 6 months so you are all paid for the year after 6 months, then just keep paying £12 a month from then on.
They won't even let you swap to annual without making it awkward.
You have to cancel your licence, they refund you the difference but you have to pay for the whole thing starting again there & then before you get the refund.
EVEN if you have just paid the final instalment on the licence you technically got 6 months before, you can't keep that licence & then buy a new annual 6 months later. You have to go through the whole rigmarole of getting a six month refund after you have paid a years fee in advance.
They don't even make it simple.

If I want I can watch Prime (cost me £59 for the year including deliveries & I get a free ebook each month plus a load of music), or I can sub to Netflix for a month for £5.99 or buy a pass & watch Entertainment channels on Sky for £5 a month or Movies for £7.50.

The BBC costs more than any of the other services I use (not all at the same time) yet I am expected to pay for it because my son watches a different subscription channel live sometimes.

It should be less than £100 per year, to keep it in line with Netflix.

Why would Netflix be the appropriate barometer when they only do TV?