To think it's a terrible idea to scrap the BBC licence fee?

[dellacucina]

Inspired by this article: www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1242927/BBC-News-Boris-Johnson-license-fee-subscription-British-Broadcasting-Corporation/amp

I'm recently naturalised and I think that the BBC is part of what makes Britain special. It makes me very sad indeed to imagine it being cut down.

ITV has local news.

ITV's news is regional, not local.

you can read newspapers for free online

Somebody is paying for that, and the owners of those papers have no public service obligation. I'd rather have some public counterpoint to Rupert Murdoch.

you can get it via social media

Hardly objective, and unless the poster is from a larger news outlet it's often neither reliable or well resourced.

ITV's news is regional, not local.

Okay, so you can go online and read your local paper for free if you want. You may not get every single article but it's still pretty easy access. They also tend to have Facebook pages.

Somebody is paying for that, and the owners of those papers have no public service obligation. I'd rather have some public counterpoint to Rupert Murdoch.

Then you can pay for a BBC subscription. Just like other people choose to pay for SKY or Virgin TV.

Hardly objective, and unless the poster is from a larger news outlet it's often neither reliable or well resourced.

BBC News isn't especially objective either! Why do you think it's any better than any other (free) news channel out there? Plenty of social media news comes from a whole variety of news channels and is completely free to read on the internet.

The point is, if you want access to BBC content, what's your objection to paying a specific subscription to it? People who want lots of films or sports channels pay for Sky cinema or Sky sports. I don't understand why people think it's acceptable for the a license fee that supports maybe 10 channels should be something that everyone has to pay, whether they benefit from it or not.

Would you pay for a SKYTV subscription you never used? What about if you electric company stuck an extra £150 on your bill every year?

You'd kick off, right? So why is it acceptable to pay the equivalent for the BBC?

My late mother loved the stuff other people deem ‘rubbish’ and looked forward to tea time when she would sit and watch the daytime stuff. She wouldn’t have known where to start with Netflix and amazon prime. I find it interesting that there is absolutely nothing some people watch on the BBC when their output is really varied and interesting. I would happily pay for it on subscription and I think BBC 4 and Radio 4 alone are worth the licence fee but I also love many of their dramas from Line of Duty to Call The Midwife and I have loved The Best Cook. I like a schedule rather than on demand and I would hate adverts on the BBC.

I'm fairly certain that relatively few actually get their news from television anymore. Obviously the BBC's online presence is a function of the license but it's worth noting that BBC news is competing with other online sources rather than other television sources.

@EntropyRising here's a different way to think about it: do you know anyone who is genuinely smart/informed who doesn't access BBC news at all? I would have thought it would form the backbone of most people's news consumption in the UK - is this not your experience?

I agree (although I'd say backdrop rather than backbone) - but, this is mainly owing to the BBC's unearned incumbent status. If the BBC were to not exist, or more likely, exist under a different funding formulae, it would disrupt the status quo and other outlets would step in to fill the lacune.

But you don't need a license to listen to any BBC Radio station at the moment - the license only covers the TV aspect. So radio is free for everyone regardless of income level.

The licence fee is only payable if you watch tv but it also funds BBC radio. (In other words radio is not free, it's paid for by licence fee payers.)

I’m obviously one of the rare few as nearly all the news I access is via the BBC.

The licence fee is only payable if you watch tv but it also funds BBC radio. (In other words radio is not free, it's paid for by licence fee payers.)

Sure, fair point. But if people valued BBC Radio, they could always pay the fee. Just as people who like Netflix or NowTV currently Pau the subscription costs.

Channel 4 News is often mentioned on MN and I suspect that Good Morning Britain has higher viewership than BBC Breakfast (I know it's not "proper" news )!

Does anyone know the split between people who watch, listen and read the news? How many do 2 or 3 of the methods?

I should have split read into read online and read newspapers.

96% of the population use the bbc
Only not on mumsnet apparently. Apparently here we have all of the 4%

I have Netflix, Now TV and Sky Cinema. I ain't paying for the BBC as well.

Their news website is poor. Always slow in giving the headlines. Too many videos. I want to read articles.

I think the licence fee is well past its sell by date. I am not opposed to some sort of media tax or levy - to fund infrastructure as well as some level of public service broadcasting split across the terrestrial channels - but in its current form it is no longer viable.

In our household we don't watch any live broadcasts, with the exception of live football matches, so I pay £150 a year for the privilege of watching something which at least half the time I actually watch from another provider. We don't listen to radio and watch very little BBC output.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on the thread is how the very definition of a "live broadcast" is becoming wider and wider. If I watch a live video on Facebook or YouTube, is that a broadcast? How do you define it, does it depend who is broadcasting? So a BBC live on Facebook is different to a gamer live-streaming on YouTube? When does the gamer become a broadcast for TV licence purposes? If they have a certain number of followers, or if they're monetised, or...?

I think the cleanest way forward would be as someone suggested upthread, a levy on internet/media subscriptions, but even that is problematic when you consider something like Amazon Prime which is delivery and media rolled into one - what about those who use it for delivery only? Whatever they do it will annoy and disadvantage some, but the current mechanism is not fair or balanced and it does need addressing

96% of the population use the bbc

Surely this figure means listened to BBC Radio or watched a BBC programme or read a BBC website? If it was just one of those mediums you wouldn't get anywhere near 96%

A previous poster stated that people from outside the UK can watch BBC programmes for free. Is that really the case?

I'm in the US, and there are BBC shows that air for free on PBS. I've only ever watched Call the Midwife and Sherlock on there, so I'm not sure what all is available. My cable provider has a couple of BBC stations, but I do pay for that as part of my package.

@strawberrylipgloss
Sorry what difference does that make exactly?
For some reason on mumsnet, everyone think the bbc is a waste of time. But 96% of the GB public use it. Which means it’s isn’t a waste of time really is it.

It’s basically used by everyone. But on this “free” site, it’s hated by most 🤷‍♀️

Netflix is £120 a year. And you get a 10th of what you have access to on the bbc.
But as per usual it’s more of “I give no fucks about that so why am I paying for it”

The NHS is the next on the hit list.

I'm fed up of comments that criticism is hatred. Its tedious.

The BBC is far from perfect but I think it is a good thing to have a public service broadcaster that is not subject to market forces. I support the licence fee but am not looking at Auntie through rose-tinted spectacles. The top talent is overpaid, the news service needs an overhaul and it could do with some slimming.

For some reason on mumsnet, everyone think the bbc is a waste of time. But 96% of the GB public use it. Which means it’s isn’t a waste of time really is it.

Well if that 96% don't see it as a waste, they'll happily carry on paying their subscription (eg license fee) won't they?

If people genuinely don't use the BBC, why should they have to pay for it?

*Netflix is £120 a year. And you get a 10th of what you have access to on the bbc.
But as per usual it’s more of “I give no fucks about that so why am I paying for it”

The NHS is the next on the hit list.*

It's £144, £108 or £72 depending on the plan, so I'm not sure where you got that figure from. All of them are cheaper than a TV license and Netflix has more stuff I personally want to watch than the BBC.

Not wanting to pay for a TV license has fuck all to do with wanting to get rid of the NHS FFS.

Netflix is £120 a year. And you get a 10th of what you have access to on the bbc.
But as per usual it’s more of “I give no fucks about that so why am I paying for it”

Where did you get that figure from?

We pay £5.99 a month for Netflix so that's £71.88. For Amazon Prime we pay £79 annually.

So for our annual Netflix and Amazon account we pay LESS than the TV licence.

And we still have access to the better quality BBC programmes because the BBC SELLS them to other companies (sometimes before we in the UK even get to see them).

From April the TV licence will cost you £157.50. Fuck that for a game of soldiers..

For Netflix and Amazon prime you must pay for broadband though.

You won't be seeing the same quality BBC programming if its forced to be subscription because of commercial pressures. High budget dramas, or new untried ones will be rarer because they have higher risks of failure. Loads of programmes on the BBC get lots of viewers that would never be commercially produced.

My household has not owned a TV for 10+ years

Life still goes on

Plenty of other ways of accessing news, entertainment, education etc

Some people don't own a TV, but may own a car with a radio ...

I love the Beeb. Will forever be grateful for Cbeebies when DD was little, and now love Radio 4. Would happily pay more actually.