Is it time the licence fee was scrapped and a subscription introduced? - Discussion

We have seen plenty on the news, on social media and in the press lately about the BBC licence fee being scrapped/axed and I think this should be the place to air our views and thoughts.

Firstly two questions to consider:-

1) should the licence fee be scrapped?
I would say yes, I think it is outdated and an archaic way to be paying for our TV when you can pay a subscription fee for many services this days. Thr BBC argue that by scrapping the licence fee, we could expect to see the quality of programming it can make diminish greatly. my counter argument to that argument would be that they should look at the huge salaries that certain presenters are earning and make salary cuts and plough some of that clawed back cash into programming.
For me a paid subscription would probably help improve programming and quality would improve. If the fee as to remain, then it should be decriminalised
and maybe it should somehow work to a subscription fee type system so that even if you only paid a certain amount of the fee during a month, you should still be able to watch programmes for that period.

2) How much would you pay monthly as a subscription?
For me this is probably the issue that needs to be settled in an sensitive manner. I think the fee should be set at a reasonable level so that the majority of householders can pay monthly without having to struggle to pay it. I would like to think that the fee should be set around £7.99 - 9.99 a month.

Those are my thoughts, let's have yours!!

perfect example of how passion overtook someone, whereas spell checker for the title may have been a wise move? lol.

It is an arcane model of funding at present. If the state wants a broadcaster it should be honest and fund it out of general taxation or make it subscriber model only not dress it up as a "licence". No excuses in the digital era of encryption.

They could have a much slimmer free to air operation for News and Current affairs and Public Information output, then a paywalled part where the crown jewels drama, sport and documentaries and such like is purchasable like Sky or BT. The paywalled bit could fund the the free News weather and current affairs content, with little or no taxpayer levy.

I think if they was to scrap it & replace it with a subscription service that is how it probably would look, but I do feel that the paywall service should be set at a reasonable price. I know ITV box Office screens a lot of big fights that way but I do think they have modelled it on the Sky Sports model too much, but there you go. But I still feel that the 'Crown Jewels' of sport should remain FTA no matter what. But I still also feel that clawing back some of the extensive salaries the BBC pay their presenters should be an area looked at and if they do decide to claw any of that back to invest in programming, it would be a start.

(18-02-2020 07:52 )kelly1066 Wrote:  perfect example of how passion overtook someone, whereas spell checker for the title may have been a wise move? lol.

I wish an auto correct on this forum kicked in when typing sometimes

I would say it is time for the icence fee(sorry I’m couldnt help it) to be abolished and an opt in fee to be introduced mainly due to the fact that there are a lot of presenters on massive salaries, Gary jug ears Lineker for one that tax payers shouldn’t have to cover when the money mentioned is pretty crazily for what the BBC is but it’s a difficult situation. They could create a FTA channel which runs a select few things free like news, Eastenders and what little sport the BBC still has plus select new programs.

I can honestly say I’d probably not bother with a subscription if the license was abolished, sure I’d miss out on the what little football and sport they do have but beyond that I barely watched bbc in the last few years, if I did ever subscribe it would be constantly on and off.

(18-02-2020 09:11 )babelover48 Wrote:  But I still feel that the 'Crown Jewels' of sport should remain FTA no matter what. But I still also feel that clawing back some of the extensive salaries the BBC pay their presenters should be an area looked at and if they do decide to claw any of that back to invest in programming, it would be a start.

This is classic 'have your cake and eat it'.

As for salaries, if you want some control over salaries then it has to stay publicly funded, at least in part. If you want to make it wholly commercial, then salaries are their business and nobody else's.

Personally, I'm quite happy with what I get for the licence fee. I probably watch more BBC than any other single channel. Many of my favourite shows are on there and I listen to a great deal of their radio output.
Obviously though, if you don't use their services very much you have every right to be aggrieved at the licence fee.

If you use BBC services then the licence fee may be good value, but if like myself you hardly use it then it feels like a waste of money. I could easily go without it's services. If it became subscription, I wouldn't consider paying it, and would rather see the money in my pocket.

The only thing I watch on the BBC are the proms - so I'm being totally ripped off. It would be cheaper to buy tickets than pay the rip off licence fee.

I think a lot of this debate is based around selfishness and greed to be honest. The idea that you don't want to pay the licence fee because you feel it doesn't give you value for money. What about everybody else? The BBC offers a wide range of programming on multiple platforms TV/Digital/Radio. The idea is that there is something for everyone.

Somebody like me who watches the BBC for Match of the Day, Doctor Who, HIGNFY, Attenborough documentaries, big dramas e.g His Dark Materials wouldn't look once let alone twice at EastEnders, Countryfile, Strictly, The One Show, Bargain Hunt or Casualty but plenty of others do, who perhaps hate sport and/or science fiction.

People mischaracterise the BBC. It is not a state broadcaster, a state broadcaster like Russia Today is controlled by the government, it is a public broadcaster, it is a public service. I always laugh when you see the far left call for an end to the licence fee in favour of subscription, so you are in favour of the privatisation of a public service? The idea of a public service is that is universal and is there to provide for everyone. For example I live in work in central Aberdeen, I rarely use the trains which operate on publicly owned lines but I don't bemoan my taxes being spent on the upkeep of those lines when millions of commuters use them at least twice a day compared to the maybe 5-10 I use them in a year. I am also young, healthy and able bodied I am not receiving value for money from the NHS but I pay NI for other people who have a greater need.

If you were to use a subscription based model you would not be able to charge a competitive £7.99 - £9.99 and keep the same level of programming. Streaming giants such as Netflix are a global broadcaster this article for Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-...?r=US&IR=T) shows that Emarketer which measure Netflix global penetration, estimates that 756 million people will use a streaming service at least once per month back in 2018 of which Netflix would see an estimated 44% share. Netflix most popular show, Stranger Things, was streamed into 40m households within the first couple of days of it's season 3 premiere. By contrast the most popular event broadcast on a single channel in this country was the marriage of Princess Anne & Mark Phillips on the BBC (other events like Charles & Diana and 1966 final were split over BBC & ITV) so there is just not the same level of viewer penetration to make that low fee feasible.

When you compare what the BBC offer to what Netflix does it is not in the same league: BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, 18 local tv stations, News & Parliament, iPlayer, 17 major & 40 local radio stations & a world news service that is seen globally as a gold standard in news.

The point made earlier about it being a public service is crucial particularly when you take into account all those local tv news & radio stations. Local news is a vital part of communities especially those that are not part of the major metropolitan cities. There is no way they would be able to survive on a subscription, market based model, that is why other forms of local news e.g newspapers are going out of business. This type of information austerity will hit the most economically vulnerable communities, the so called left behind, the hardest.

Let's say you live on a council estate or economically deprived area. Your child wants to see their hero's in the England national team at the World Cup, hey their kids they don't know any better, we all know where that will end up if the licence fee is scrapped, Sky. That means the family would have to pay the basic subscription rate plus the sports package to see it. I have BT Sports for the Champs Lge, that is an extra £36 a month on top of my Sky subscription, basic Sky is £22.50 that works out at £702 a year no family in those circumstances could afford that (Please don't respond to this with your bullshit tinfoil hat wearing, tabloid headlines about people living the highlife on benefits right wing nutjob propaganda). It's not just the football what if you or your kid wants to watch Wimbledon, Six Nations, Winter Olympics, Real Olympics etc it will all go the same way.

The argument about BBC high salaries is also a dead end because in reality they are not competitive with the market. What Gary Lineker gets is chicken feed to what Ant & Dec get.

The BBC is also the largest purchaser of independent media in the UK, if it were to cut costs as it would if it needed to have a competitive subscription fee this would have a knock on affect to small independent production companies, it would see many small business in the entertainment sector become redundant. This is also why I laugh when idiots criticise HIGNFY for spouting BBC propaganda, it's not made by the BBC it's made by Hat-trick productions, the BBC just broadcast it.

In short I feel that scrapping the licence fee would be a regressive and selfish move that would hit local communities, the financially least well off, the elderly many of whom suffer from loneliness and use the TV as their only source of companionship and small businesses the hardest. All because you wanted to keep that little bit of money to yourself because you don't like that The Doctor is now a woman and that the news is too left wing......or too right wing.....or too anti-Brexit...….or too pro-Brexit