Let’s talk about BBC

[Beebo]

I wouldn't mind either, even though I don't watch much BBC output. I think there are younger people who genuinely never watch or listen to BBC stuff who will object to paying though, even if it went down to say £50, because they don't hold the BBC in the affection/esteem that older people often do. To them it's just another service provider, one among many. Why should you pay for an unused service?

You are right. But that’s because no one e has told them otherwise.
Most of us grew up with 3 TV channels. 66% output was BBC. Plus the big radio stations. The media landscape has changed dramatically in 40 years.
there needs to be a public information campaign so people understand the BBC isn’t just another platform.
It has a royal charter that sets out what it has to do, which is to inform, educate and entertain.
No other platform has these obligations. It’s why it isn’t a commercial enterprise.
But its scope probably needs to be reduced. There is no point in it competing in areas which are already well served by the private sector.
For instance, why not just let ITV have the World Cup. As long as it is free to air, who cares?

 

[Pross]

BBC news link - new Director General suggests a household levy so that 100% of people pay towards the license. Currently it has dropped to 80% (I assume 80% of all people who they think watch TV)

I’ve said before, it should just get made a communication tax and used to fund the BBC. It stops people trying to argue they shouldn’t pay as they don’t watch BBC output.

 

[briantrumpet]

I’ve said before, it should just get made a communication tax and used to fund the BBC. It stops people trying to argue they shouldn’t pay as they don’t watch BBC output.

The political trouble is that the easiest thing would be just to include it in general taxation, as only a few weirdos like me don't ever watch TV, even if I do read every Chris Mason article on the website.

FWIW, France do include it in property tax, but you can make a declaration that you never watch TV and not pay it. It's about the same as a UK TV licence.

 

[Ian H]

You are right. But that’s because no one e has told them otherwise.
Most of us grew up with 3 TV channels. 66% output was BBC. Plus the big radio stations. The media landscape has changed dramatically in 40 years.
there needs to be a public information campaign so people understand the BBC isn’t just another platform.
It has a royal charter that sets out what it has to do, which is to inform, educate and entertain.
No other platform has these obligations. It’s why it isn’t a commercial enterprise.
But its scope probably needs to be reduced. There is no point in it competing in areas which are already well served by the private sector.
For instance, why not just let ITV have the World Cup. As long as it is free to air, who cares?

The thing is that, if the BBC had a stable and reliable income, not subject to the whims of here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians, it probably wouldn't feel the need to compete so much with the commercial channels.

 

[briantrumpet]

here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians

Hey, you can only use that phrase if you're wearing a bow tie!

 

[BoldonLad]

You are right. But that’s because no one e has told them otherwise.
Most of us grew up with 3 TV channels. 66% output was BBC. Plus the big radio stations. The media landscape has changed dramatically in 40 years.
there needs to be a public information campaign so people understand the BBC isn’t just another platform.
It has a royal charter that sets out what it has to do, which is to inform, educate and entertain.
No other platform has these obligations. It’s why it isn’t a commercial enterprise.
But its scope probably needs to be reduced. There is no point in it competing in areas which are already well served by the private sector.
For instance, why not just let ITV have the World Cup. As long as it is free to air, who cares?

Haven't ITV just entered into some form of relationship with Sky?, they are promising "free" stuff will stay "free" for now, but, who knows?

 

[AndyRM]

The thing is that, if the BBC had a stable and reliable income, not subject to the whims of here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians, it probably wouldn't feel the need to compete so much with the commercial channels.

I wonder how many people would miss the BBC if it was to disappear. A lot, I reckon.

 

[First Aspect]

BBC news link - new Director General suggests a household levy so that 100% of people pay towards the license. Currently it has dropped to 80% (I assume 80% of all people who they think watch TV)

This is a tax. Which makes it a perfect argument for funding the BBC out of general taxation.

The question the DG needs to then ask is whether this would have the outcome he/she desires. Because this really shows what a distorted bubble they live in. Let me show some working....

... Roughly £4Bn currently comes from the licence fee. Theissing 20% would make that around 5.

What do we need to find about £5Bn to fund this week?

So, do we (a) pay Claire Balding lots and lots to be a comforting household name, or (b) tell the BBC to make it's own money and otherwise fark itself, and fund defence?

 

[briantrumpet]

This is a tax. Which makes it a perfect argument for funding the BBC out of general taxation.

The question the DG needs to then ask is whether this would have the outcome he/she desires. Because this really shows what a distorted bubble they live in. Let me show some working....

... Roughly £4Bn currently comes from the licence fee. Theissing 20% would make that around 5.

What do we need to find about £5Bn to fund this week?

So, do we (a) pay Claire Balding lots and lots to be a comforting household name, or (b) tell the BBC to make it's own money and otherwise fark itself, and fund defence?

Yup, that's why I think it's politically really problematic, even if it would be practical. No money left to pay the waspi women, for starters.