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.

I only have netflix, prime and now. I resent the way the bbc underpay women, covered up child abuse and have lost all teeth in political debate.

You do NOT need a licence to watch bbc programmes that have been purchased by subscription services as they are not live. You can also watch itv and ch4 and 5 on demand.

I get my news online and prefer the output of the subscription channels as they produce much more sci-fi etc.

I still get threatening letters saying they need to come into my house to check. Er, no. You don't. Just like I wouldn't let Virgin media or BT in to "check". The whole concept is vastly outdated and not fit for practice.

In the last year I have watched two bbc shows, years and years and his dark materials.

Years and years 6 episodes
His dark materials 8 episodes

Thats £11 per episode, I could see a film at the cinema for that.

£154.50 is about £12.80 a month, I can get netflix and prime for £14 a month.

To those who just say it should be a subscription service, can you please explain why this is better?

Because I'd like to not be forced to pay for something that's not fit for purpose.

I was listening to BBC Worldservice this morning. I heard for the THIRD time the same segment that wasn't too impressive when I heard it the first two times, a profile of a trio of women plumbers in Jordan.

Why are they doing this? Because they can.

I certainly support it happening. We watch nothing and listen to nothing that the BBC produces.

Regarding having to buy a license, this from their site:

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:

•   <strong>*watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel</strong>
  

•   <strong>*watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service</strong> (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
  

•   <strong>*download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer</strong>.
  

This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.

It cost less than 50p a day

That's the sort of argument people make when they've either had no experience of being genuinely hard-up, or their experience of it is in the past and has been forgotten.

Yes, it could be argued that you don't need a television, but in a way, the less money you have, the more likely you are to have to rely on one for entertainment and to stop feelings of isolation - e.g. if you are unemployed, unwell, unable to work due to disability.

For £ 150 a year I can watch two channels and listen to many more shows and broadcasts on the radio and it's much better than netfix which tends to buffer a lot and doesn't show news 24 or any of the things I tend to watch! I know it's not perfect and needs an over haul but I'd be sad to see it go the way of subscribed tv.
I watch many more shows on bbc than I do itv generally and like that they don't show ads etc.
I can see how this will happen eventually but people complaining about the licence fee tend to be ones that pay hundred a month for full sky packages!
It's good value but I know I'm in the minority thinking this.

@BecauseReasons do you truly believe that the BBC would be equally as independent if it relied on commercial funding? Commercial sponsors (which typically would be large corporations) can decide to withdraw revenue if they don't like the content that is being aired.

Hypothetical example: let's say Unilever is a sponsor of BBC News. Do you think BBC News will then eagerly do investigative reporting when Unilever products are found to be dangerous to children?

It's interesting that nearly every comment so far has focussed on the BBC's TV channels. What about its national, and local, radio? Very hard to see how that would work without some subsidy, however paid for. Also major initiatives which the BBC both runs and broadcasts such as the Proms.

It's good value

Only if you actually use it. People should be able to determine what 'good value' is for themselves, rather than being told.

Its not 50p a day. You have to buy the licence outright, or pay for the first 6 months up front, then start paying the next 6 months in advance.
its £12.50 a month after you have paid for the first 6 months, and thats a different kettle of fish.

do you truly believe that the BBC would be equally as independent if it relied on commercial funding

I don't think it's independent now! It chooses what news it reports and is incredibly biased.

We didn’t have a licence for years because we only watched catchup. When dh wanted to watch the F1 again we had to get one.

5 years after using the iplayer the same programs were still on there.

people complaining about the licence fee tend to be ones that pay hundred a month for full sky packages!

From what data have you deduced that?

I don't have Sky, Netflix or any subscription packages. £150 a year is quite enough of my budget to go on television! If the licence fee were scrapped, I might well use some of the money saved to subscribe to channels that I'd like to watch but don't get on Freeview, but as it stands I can't afford to spunk more money on the box in the corner.

We didn’t have a licence for years because we only watched catchup. Wow, that's quite a technicality you got off on.

I was listening to BBC Worldservice this morning. I heard for the THIRD time the same segment that wasn't too impressive when I heard it the first two times, a profile of a trio of women plumbers in Jordan.

The BBC offers four national channels plus local radio stations. No-one forces you to stick with one.

It's a media tax that citizens of most countries pay, it's just that we decided the proceeds should go to the BBC. When I lived in Germany, admittedly a long time ago, I used to have to pay a 'broadcasting' tax and it was very closely monitored. Everyone paid it, even if they only had a radio.

I think people in general think that if the licence fee is scrapped they'll save money but I'm not so sure.

I'm happy to pay for the BBC.

If it went to a subscription service, presumably all the concessions would have to go.

What about its national, and local, radio? Very hard to see how that would work without some subsidy, however paid for.

Well, enough independent radio stations manage to keep going. Yes, you have adverts (and I've yet to meet the person who enjoys radio adverts ) but is it really worth £150 a year not to have adverts on the radio?

people complaining about the licence fee tend to be ones that pay hundred a month for full sky packages!

You've now delivered the perfect sketch of the BBC's loyal army.

Netflix et al don't provide news, accessible content, local radio, national radio, world service, Open University related content etc. We'd risk losing all of that.

MaudesMum I agree. Do those who say they never watch the bbc also never listen to any BBC radio stations. All the local radio stations would probably go and they are the ones many people rely on for local information about school closures, bus cancellations, weather, traffic etc. I know you can get this information on line and on some commercial radio stations but I know many older people who rely solely on BBC radio stations for that sort of information and radio 4 for company none of it is likely to attract commercial sponsorship.

If it were a subscription service it would be paid for by the people who use it.
The way we watch Television has changed and the BBC needs to change with it.

do you truly believe that the BBC would be equally as independent if it relied on commercial funding

I don’t see the BBC as independent - I see it as heavily biased. And it completely fails to present a genuinely diverse range of viewpoints, despite its endless wittering on about diversity.

Move it to a subscription model, and you won’t have the corporate conflicts you seem so worried about.

Netflix et al don't provide news, accessible content, local radio, national radio, world service, Open University related content etc. We'd risk losing all of that

We have got other TV channels available for free already, you know. They also do the news. We've also got independent local radio stations etc.

All the local radio stations would probably go and they are the ones many people rely on for local information about school closures, bus cancellations, weather, traffic etc.

My local radio station is privately funded and has adverts. BBC 1 tells me nothing about traffic (understandably, being a national station) and the local BBC one is just rubbish- I didn't bother tuning my new car's radio to it.

The BBC offers four national channels plus local radio stations. No-one forces you to stick with one.

I think you've really missed the point here.

The BBC World Service is the crown jewel of the BBC's talk radio lineup, (alongside R4). Why are they recycling such drivel? How is a local station a good replacement for an international station?

I did in fact change the station, to one that has advertising.