TV licence fee

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The article is pretty clear "The other markets which saw more than 50% of total TV viewers watch the Grand Final were...and the UK."

More than 50% of TV viewers ticks my box for "most of us" but you may well have a broader definition than this, which is your perogative.

But is your case not based on the shaky belief that the BBC makes programmes other channels wouldn’t?

Eurovision is not a good example, Andrew, given it’s popularity (not in this house, mind).

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The article is pretty clear "The other markets which saw more than 50% of total TV viewers watch the Grand Final were...and the UK."

More than 50% of TV viewers ticks my box for "most of us" but you may well have a broader definition than this, which is your perogative.

The question wasn't more than 50% of TV viewers it was most of us don't watch bbc so in answer to that this article ticks that box nicely, I await your next twisty turny thing (stolen from the BBC ) with something less than anticipation

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr K

In real terms its income has gone down 25% since 2010.
https://www.vlv.org.uk/news/bbc-real...as-in-2010-11/

Not so long ago it only provided 2 tv channels, now it provides:- Attachment 29936

People never like paying, but for 43p a day it's a steal compared to Sky /Virgin or what a sub based service would cost.

That is 43p per day based on everyone being forced to pay the TV tax, what would it be if people had the choice to watch and pay or not watch and therefor not having to pay the TV Tax ?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The question wasn't more than 50% of TV viewers it was most of us don't watch bbc so in answer to that this article ticks that box nicely, I await your next twisty turny thing (stolen from the BBC ) with something less than anticipation

This question seems to alter every time I try and answer it!

Obviously, you're not going to get the majority of the population watching one TV programme when there's other forms of entertainment out there. So I know Old Boy is bright enough not to mean this unusual definition and instead the industry definition as used in BroadbandTVNews.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sirius

That is 43p per day based on everyone being forced to pay the TV tax, what would it be if people had the choice to watch and pay or not watch and therefor not having to pay the TV Tax ?

It would cost a lot more and those that don't want to pay, suddenly realise they did use some of the BBC tv/website/iplayer/news/sport/weather/apps/national and local radio services after all.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This question seems to alter every time I try and answer it!

Obviously, you're not going to get the majority of the population watching one TV programme when there's other forms of entertainment out there. So I know Old Boy is bright enough not to mean this unusual definition and instead the industry definition as used in BroadbandTVNews.

Nope the only one altering the question is you as somewhat haphazardly try and answer it I've stuck rigidly to the original question and maintain most of us don't watch their content and can happily live without it

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This question seems to alter every time I try and answer it!

Obviously, you're not going to get the majority of the population watching one TV programme when there's other forms of entertainment out there. So I know Old Boy is bright enough not to mean this unusual definition and instead the industry definition as used in BroadbandTVNews.

It's not the first time that questions or points made change with discussion!

However, I don't agree with The Daddy when he says that most of us don't watch the BBC. On the contrary, I think most do, but my argument is that those who don't shouldn't have to pay, and that is why I like the idea of a subscription model for today's audience. I also think there should be an ad-funded version available for those who do not wish or cannot pay.

The constant refrain that other channels would not make some of the programmes it does if the Beeb didn't exist I find hard to fathom. There are examples of similar programmes on other channels, which disproves that. If the BBC didn't already have the rights to Eurovision, Wimbledon, etc, do you really think other channels wouldn't pick them up?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Nope the only one altering the question is you as somewhat haphazardly try and answer it I've stuck rigidly to the original question and maintain most of us don't watch their content and can happily live without it

91 per cent of UK adults use BBC television, radio or online each week.
https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource-repo...ats-facts.html

[Sephiroth]

My BBC watching is mainly Politics Live, Newsnight, Antiques Roadshow (sometimes); the odd Drama series.

Newsnight has an ITV equivalent, Peston.

Current news I can get from many sources and GB News is getting there, I would add.

ARENA and the like appear on the UK TV type channels so no issue there.

BBC in its current bloated form is not a necessity, imo.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's not the first time that questions or points made change with discussion!

However, I don't agree with The Daddy when he says that most of us don't watch the BBC. On the contrary, I think most do, but my argument is that those who don't shouldn't have to pay, and that is why I like the idea of a subscription model for today's audience. I also think there should be an ad-funded version available for those who do not wish or cannot pay.

The constant refrain that other channels would not make some of the programmes it does if the Beeb didn't exist I find hard to fathom. There are examples of similar programmes on other channels, which disproves that. If the BBC didn't already have the rights to Eurovision, Wimbledon, etc, do you really think other channels wouldn't pick them up?

I agree with some of what you say.

My more fundamental point is that we're the fifth richest country in the world. If people cannot afford to pay for a TV licence then there's something fundamentally wrong with the country.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I agree with some of what you say.

My more fundamental point is that we're the fifth richest country in the world. If people cannot afford to pay for a TV licence then there's something fundamentally wrong with the country.

But many people are poor and can't afford the basics, there is definitely something wrong with the country.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

But many people are poor and can't afford the basics, there is definitely something wrong with the country.

Agreed.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I agree with some of what you say.

My more fundamental point is that we're the fifth richest country in the world. If people cannot afford to pay for a TV licence then there's something fundamentally wrong with the country.

Whilst what you say is true, it's definitely not the point. A TV licence, forcing people to pay for something they might not want, on pain of criminal record, is plain wrong. A different funding model for the BBC must be found or a very much lower licence fee for a cut down BBC and no criminality for not paying.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

91 per cent of UK adults use BBC television, radio or online each week.
https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource-repo...ats-facts.html

Which makes you wonder why the BBC seem to think that if the licence fee converted to a subscription, they’d have to more than double the cost to subscribers.

But I agree that despite what some people claim, most do watch it, albeit some occasionally, and if the licence fee changed to a subscription fee with only a modest increase in payment, it would be a workable proposition.The advertisement laden alternative would make up any shortfall.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Whilst what you say is true, it's definitely not the point. A TV licence, forcing people to pay for something they might not want, on pain of criminal record, is plain wrong. A different funding model for the BBC must be found or a very much lower licence fee for a cut down BBC and no criminality for not paying.

There's no ideal model for the licence fee if we accept the need for a state broadcaster. I've heard adding it to council tax as one suggestion which could help those on benefits and maybe help reduce the costs of collecting the fee.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:21 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Which makes you wonder why the BBC seem to think that if the licence fee converted to a subscription, they’d have to more than double the cost to subscribers.

The extra cost to subscribers would partly come from the need to paywall it across all platforms including Freeview and Freesat.