To say that the TV Licence should be abolished?

[Appalonia]

When I look at what I watch on TV these days on the BBC, it's really only Strictly, repeats of TOTP and Glastonbury . There's nothing else that interests me. I listen to Trevor Nelson on R2, but that's it. I watch Netflix, Amazon much more and some shows on ITV, C4 or Sky Arts. And a lot of interviews on YouTube and podcasts. I also object to how the BBC posits itself as the voice of truth and neutrality, but it really isn't these days, on so many issues.

Why are we forced to pay for a service that has had its day and is no longer fit for service?

It might be me, but I'm really not understanding the arguments about why the World Service is so essential and thus a justification for keeping the BBC licence fee.

I've listened to the odd programme on it - and they do have some decent content imho - but why on earth would it be the responsibility of British people who want to watch live commercial TV only to fund the WS for the rest of the world, however noble it may be?

If it's somehow considered as 'aid' to all of these countries, the government has a specific aid budget that they could - and should - use to fund it. If it's just a 'nice to have' for the rest of the world, again, why is it down to the British public who want to watch ITV to fund it for them all, but not those who only watch Netflix or Amazon Prime.

It's not considered aid, it's considered 'soft power'. The government has actually increased funding for the World Service (this is aside from the license fee) to keep it running in as many countries as possible. It's not necessarily the case of people in the UK watching it, the service is outward facing (although I love HARDtalk and I'm sad it's been cancelled).

This all depends on your view of the world and the place western governments have in it.

When the World Service has to remove itself from a country due to lack of funding another state broadcaster will step in, namely China and Russia. Some on this thread will argue that the BBC is biased, full of misinformation or disinformation and if that's someone's belief then I can understand they likely don't give a stuff about the WS. But if you're more inclined to think that, for example, Russia's State broadcaster is full of misinformation and disinformation (or shall we say propaganda?) then it's likely you don't want a country like Russia stepping in.

Is Britain invading other countries? Are they illegally developing nuclear weapons? Are they persecuting minorities? Do we have state controlled media telling us about the atrocities of these countries we're invading in itself to justify it? Sometimes the world service is the ONLY source of news people have outside if state control media or similar.

The world service, whether you believe it or not, provides important services across many countries and the reach is global. The impact is significant.

It even played significant role within the I'm to fact check disinformation about 5G in the UK.

There's a very interesting read here

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/bbc-world-service-soft-power-and-funding-challenges/#heading-1

Even Kofi Anan said it was
"The greatest British gift to the world".

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/849/ws25.htm

@Rhinostone No, my example is you never watch BBC but you still have to pay because you occasionally watch live tv, like sports events which are on prime tv, now tv etc and you already pay to subscribe to them.
I think if the BBC had the rights for more football content less people would be complaining, but no, you usually have to pay to watch the matches somewhere else.
And you need the licence because you want to watch them live (not on BBC).

I agree. Maybe if the BBC had to compete with Netflix, Amazon etc, it would actually make some TV that was worth watching...

Netflix is even considering a traditional linear TV model... Because the subscription and series dumps are a pain for them.

They have to take a punt on a series, spend the entire series budget , get casting, production, get it translated, edited, all ready for a global release - which makes times of production far longer (and people don't like waiting 2...3.. years for season 2 "to drop"), so before they even know if this popular, commit to a second series etc.
It's hugely expensive and risky business.

Netflix and Amazon buy the BBC content

And contract the ex-BBC freelancers who make it for their own commissions.

This is really interesting. got anything I can read up more about it, please?

There isn’t enough adverting revenue in the UK to sustain the BBC taking advertising revenue, yes advertisers would flock to them at the detriment of the current channels that are funded that way.

It would potentially put other broadcasters at risk and be damaging to the industry as a whole in the UK.

The license has been fixed since 2021 and it’s being increased in line with inflation next year, it’s hardly been hiked regularly.

The world service is viewed by the government as very important in terms of UK soft power internationally, in a world where 70% of countries have no free press - and the government do part fund it.

Other tv producers regularly collaborate on coproductions, especially on dramas that are hugely expensive and Netflix is full of BBC content that they’ve bought, either as part of an initial deal before production or the rights are sold on afterwards.

But why only part? If it's considered so important, why does the government rely on ordinary TV watchers to fund the rest of their soft power grab?

Is it so important that, if we all switched to ITVX and Netflix and legitimately stopped paying the licence fee, this strategic government gambit would simply fizzle away with nothing more than a "Ah, well, then"?

Ask the government, their decision not mine! And raise this question in the public consultation, it’ll be starting next year in the run up to charter renewal.

@ShaggyPutItOnWhatAPongItGaveHimTheShakesNShivers

So why prop the WS up with government grants at all? If it serves no purpose why not let it collapse?

It was funded by The Foreign Office until 2010. Cameron / Osborne then got rid of the funding under austerity measures. A few years later, they gave the WS a substantial grant to keep it going. So why did they give the WS any kind of grant? What was happening in the world at that time? An expansion of Russian and Chinese state broadcasting.

Every government knows it's a MASSIVE asset to the UK and western democracy. They may not want to pay for it themselves (and my argument is that actually it should not be funded by the general public, it should come out of the Foreign office) but they know other countries want what we have with the WS and BBC in general because it holds so much soft power.

I think they should bring back our old favourites like

Top of the Pops
Tomorrow’s World
Terry and June
Blue Peter
Grandstand
Swap Shop
Saturday Superstore
Nationwide

to BBC1

Can you listen to BBC Sounds without a licence ?

Yes

@ShaggyPutItOnWhatAPongItGaveHimTheShakesNShivers the government funding it is still the tax payer though

It comes from us anyway

Absolutely this. And much better value than the royal family.

https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/tv-time-between-seasons-too-long-77356/

https://ew.com/television-shows-long-breaks-between-seasons-8678048

True, but it would presumably be paid from the taxes of everybody who has, presumably, paid according to their means.

It would be paid by a rich businessman who never has time to watch live TV, as he's always jetting around the world and goes to the opera when he gets downtime; rather than the unemployed single mother for whom a bit of TV after the kids ate in bed is her only treat.