How long until the License Fee is dropped?

[mumofoneAloneandwell]

I reckon by the end of this year, it will begin being phased out.

I am sad about it.

This sounds like it deserves the attention of a separate thread.

This article is really interesting on how trusted BBC News is and how that differs by political persuasion. 400 million people a week across the world use the BBC News.

When you see how many people trust BBC News you can see why people with their own agenda might want it gone.

In a world where so much of the media is owned by billionaires with a schtick I hope the BBC remains and I don't mind paying for it.

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/bbc-under-scrutiny-heres-what-research-tells-about-its-role-uk

Thank you. I shall watch that with interest.

While I appreciate some people are happy to pay the licence fee, there are increasing numbers of us who don't want any BBC products or services. The licence fee model is so outdated, and surely the only fair option is to move to a Netflix type monthly subscription, then those who want it can pay. However I'm sure the BBC will resist any change as long as they possibly can, and the government will go along with it.

It's probably more realistic to compare it to the likes of ITV, Channel 4 and Sky - even Channel 5 is starting to get its act together more now as a 'serious' broadcaster.

They all make and show a large range of content, similar to the BBC. All of them have found a way of funding their operations - and indeed making a very healthy profit - without the need for a licence fee.

And before anybody says "Ah, but you actually pay more for ITV when you look at all your spending on products that are advertised"... nobody has ever received a letter accusing them of crime and threatening them with prosecution for not having bought any McCain's chips or Heinz beans, not indeed demanding that they confirm and promise that they haven't bought any and making them justify having bought Tesco own-brand ones or indeed no oven chips or beans at all if they don't want or like them.

We all know that the days of traditional broadcast TV are numbered... so if the BBC can't work out for themselves how to find a modern way of funding without sending threatening letters out to pensioners and single mums, they coukd always watch what ITV and Sky do to adapt to the modern times and follow them. ITV has never benefited from the licence fee and still isn't going anywhere; so why all the catastrophising about the BBC disappearing forever?

Yep why does the BBC get so worried people won’t watch it, if the content is good people will by choice.

Can't believe anyone is defending the BBC given what we're learning about it just this week

It's a bit like a privileged trust fund kid who discovers that the investments have tanked and they'll actually have to go out and work for a living... and they assume that nobody could possibly survive or get by doing that!

But define 'good'. If by good you mean popular, then Love Island is good and a BBC 4 documentary is not. The Sun is still, I believe, the most widely consumed newspaper in the UK with its reading age of 9. And we wonder why our population is becoming less and less able to think critically, debate thoughtfully and consider current events in the context of past ones. Leaving aside the personnel issues and just looking at the actual content they make, I would always defend it.

Meant to quote the post above that one, sorry.

But TV isn't meant to be there to educate adults in what is 'good' for them to know.

Yes, The Sun sells the most; but the Guardian is still very much there for the (much smaller number of) readers who want it. The Guardian costs considerably more than The Sun to buy, but that's always going to be the way with economies of scale with anything that has a mass audience in contrast to a limited one. And, like the BBC, just because something is vaunted as intellectual, wise or academically pure, it can still have its own biases and agendas and go way off track. As for encouraging people to think critically, that doesn't seem to have happened with the left-wing 'intellectual' media and the 'no debate' insistence that people can effectively become the opposite sex, or none at all (albeit deliberately blurred via the whole 'gender' schtick).

It's not like the BBC only shows BBC4 science documentaries either; they have a load of populist stuff that would appeal to the Love Island demographic too. Can you imagine the government bringing in a mandatory tax because they were desperate to protect Mrs Brown's Boys as a jewel in the crown of the nation?! And meanwhile, the likes of ITV are forced to manage their own budgets and rely on adverts to pay their way because the likes of the powerful, essential Mr Bates Vs the Post Office series is supposedly nothing more than frivolous, throwaway, mindless junk?

Actually it was in the BBCs founding charter to educate, inform and entertain. I loathe the fact that we live in an ever dumber, less well informed society where experts are derided and passed over in favour of 'personalities' or random person on the street view of x. Anything that reduces access to high level content is not a good thing in my view.

There’s still good documentaries on other streaming platforms.

Yes, educating people was always meant to be a part of it - although I always took this to mean that there was some good, educational, well-presented stuff on there designed to draw people in and gain their attention; rather than expecting them to sulk, sit down for their own good and jolly well be educated!

But the BBC doesn't have a monopoly on educational, informative or entertaining content, any more than the other main broadcasters do.

Channel 4 has Countdown, Channel 4 News, Unreported World and Naked Attraction;
ITV has Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, The Martin Lewis Show, Tonight and I'm A Celebrity;
The BBC has Panorama, Global Eye, David Attenborough programmes and Don't Tell The Bride.

What's the difference? Which of these three broadcasters is the serious, educational one, that must be protected and funded centrally; and which of them is the silly, frivolous, ratings-seeking one that's of no real importance?

The BBC is more than just BBC 1 and 2. Look on iplayer and sounds. There's nothing else like Radio 4 that I can find.

I'm not denying that the BBC makes a load of wonderful content (DTTB is on BBC3, just for the record) - and I will gladly choose to subscribe if that is the direction that things move in post-licence fee.

But the licence fee is weird as you are forced to pay the BBC if you only ever watch ITV and Channel 4; yet you don't have to pay the BBC if you listen to Radio 3 or Radio 4 all day!

And I agree with you about Radio 4; yet I still don't think it's fair that people who are not interested in it and only watch Ant & Dec programmes should still be forced to pay for it - under threat of prosecution - to fund it for those who are. Going back to the earlier point, should Sun readers be legally forced to pay The Guardian - which likely holds no interest whatsoever for them - before they're allowed to read their tabloid? Should I be forced to make a considerable contribution to Lexus before I'm allowed to buy the battered old fourth-hand Ford that is all I can afford?

The BBC is a very strong world-class broadcaster; it doesn't need to rely on bully-boy tactics and forcing people to pay for it by default in order to survive.

But what good is the BBC doing if we already live in a dumber, less informed society?

It does remind me of the governments and politicians who bluster that everybody needs to pay their taxes so that we as a country can pay for X (that everybody treasures)... and then people do largely pay the taxes, but X still never seems to properly materialise.

Apparently the BBC now spends about £30 million a year in postage sending threatening letters to people who don't pay the TV licence, and this only leads to them recouping a fraction of that £30 million.

What a spectacularly silly organisation!

Not paid it in years as don't watch bbc. So sooner the better

Apparently the cost of collection is £165 million and the amount collected is double that.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/bbc-sends-46-million-households-33703960

If we lose the BBC we have basically kissed the concepts of freedom of information and of integrity / accuracy of information goodbye. Britain is very close to that already, following America.

I'm just sad that the licence fee hasn't already been dropped.

Sooner the better.

I don't watch BBC or listen to BBC radio. No loss (to me) if it goes under.

I used to watch Doctor Who, but it's been shit for a decade now, and I have all the best ones - with Eccleston, Tennant, and Smith - on DVD.

I will sign anything to get the licence fee abolished. The BBC is a corrupt piece of trash now IMO.

Other people may have a different interpreation of 'integrity / accuracy of information' from you...

But regardless of that, who is actually suggesting 'losing' the BBC? That's playing into their hands, really: them pushing the idea that, if the government doesn't force everybody to pay for them - or otherwise justify under threat of prosecution why they haven't paid for them - then they will cease to exist.

Channel 5 has managed to exist for the best part of 20 years and secured the necessary funding to do so - even making a decent profit into the bargain. Are you (and the BBC themselves) genuinely claiming that the mighty BBC isn't as business-competent, or have as good content that people will want to pay for, as Channel 5?

You’re not comparing like for like, Channel 5 secures funding through advertising - if the BBC did the same Channel 5 likely wouldn’t exist because the BBC has bigger viewing figures, advertisers would spend their money there instead.

So other broadcasters would go under, and it’d impact the UK media industry as a whole, which the government won’t want to happen.