nogoodnamesleft
Senior Member
How would forcing even more who don't watch it to pay for it be "fairer"?
No TV licence - anyone else?
- Thread starter biketrailerguy
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
FishFright
More wheels than sense
As long as your viewing habits remain subsidised ?
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
It's high time the absurd legality of having to pay the BBC licence fee that 'allows' you to watch live non-BBC output is scrapped.
Imo the BBC long ago ceased to be partisan and follows a number of 'pro' agendas (not for discussion here) that I disagree with as well as having had a serious drop in quality output over the years.
For these reasons I don't pay the licence fee.
I don't watch iPlayer, don't watch any live TV elsewhere and nor do I listen to any BBC radio output.
Why should I pay to subsidise others who watch the BBC?
The suggestion of adding a fee on a community charge basis is appalling - the BBC needs to get real and recognise that the world has changed since it's 1950's monopoly. It needs to operate on a commercial basis as per streamed services to be relevant in the 21st century, imo.
Imo the BBC long ago ceased to be partisan and follows a number of 'pro' agendas (not for discussion here) that I disagree with as well as having had a serious drop in quality output over the years.
For these reasons I don't pay the licence fee.
I don't watch iPlayer, don't watch any live TV elsewhere and nor do I listen to any BBC radio output.
Why should I pay to subsidise others who watch the BBC?
The suggestion of adding a fee on a community charge basis is appalling - the BBC needs to get real and recognise that the world has changed since it's 1950's monopoly. It needs to operate on a commercial basis as per streamed services to be relevant in the 21st century, imo.
Stephenite
Membå
- Location
- OslO
Norway 🇳🇴 changed the funding set up from a tv licence fee to general taxation in 2020.
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
Similarly, I haven't got a child at primary school so I'm reducing my payment to my local authority proportionally. And so on, ad infinitum, because we all actually pay for lots of stuff we don't personally use.
I pay, I'm happy to pay, and I'm proud of the BBC and its output.
I'm critical when it uppencockens too - which I'd like to see happening a damn sight less often.
That said, the funding model needs to change because non-payment 'because principle' is now so widespread, and it's becoming unsustainable.
nogoodnamesleft
Senior Member
In my view you are not distinguishing between public service and optional entertainment.
Educating the next generation, etc. are core aspects to society. Strictly Come Bake With Celebrity is not.
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
At the moment it's a package. Laid out here in the BBC's Mission (my bold):
The BBC's mission is set out in the Royal Charter. The broadcaster is to “act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain”
ktmbiker58
Senior Member
A bit of history if anyone is interested:
By 1922 wireless public broadcasting was well established in Europe with UK listeners able to tune into broadcasts of concerts from The Hague and music stations in northern France. Here in the UK broadcasts were limited to short programs transmitted from relatively low power experimental stations operated by private companies such as Marconi. The duration and content of the broadcasts were controlled by the Post Office who granted the licences to transmit.
In 1922 the British Broadcasting Company was established with the chief shareholders and investors being six major companies involved in wireless development and production; Marconi, Metropolitan Vickers, BTH, GEC, Western Electric and Radio Communication Co.
The company was granted a four year licence to transmit. Its income was from a share of the ten-shilling licence fee for owning a wireless and from a 10% royalty from the sale of a wireless. It spent the money on building a broadcast network and developing early broadcast technology. The ‘big six’ shareholders made virtually no money from the company but did gain financially through the sale of wireless sets and other related products.
By the end of 1926 when the 4 year licence expired the company had created a viable broadcasting service with over 2 million licence holders, broadcasting had established itself as not just a medium of communication but as a medium of entertainment and education and huge technological advances had been made.
The big change was in 1927, with the expiry of the operating licence for the British Broadcasting Company a new organisation was formed - the British Broadcasting Corporation which was formed by Royal Charter and inherited the broadcasting infrastructure from the original BBCompany. Instead of a limited company with shareholders and directors the new corporation was run by a Board of Governors with the intention that it should be independent of commercial and political pressures - although ultimate powers were reserved to Parliament!
The original charter of 1927 was a simple 10 page document with the majority being concerned with the structure and governance of the new corporation - regarding content there was very little : To collect news of and information relating to current events in any part of the world and in any manner that may be thought fit and to establish and subscribe to newsagencies.
It could be argued that the funding of the British Broadcasting Company from 1922 to 1926 by licence fee and royalties was essential for the development of a viable public broadcasting network here in the UK. However, times change - (all except the funding model which has stayed stuck in the 1920’s!).
If anyone is still awake and made it this far I finish with a quote from Edward, first Baron Thurlow:-
‘Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?’
By 1922 wireless public broadcasting was well established in Europe with UK listeners able to tune into broadcasts of concerts from The Hague and music stations in northern France. Here in the UK broadcasts were limited to short programs transmitted from relatively low power experimental stations operated by private companies such as Marconi. The duration and content of the broadcasts were controlled by the Post Office who granted the licences to transmit.
In 1922 the British Broadcasting Company was established with the chief shareholders and investors being six major companies involved in wireless development and production; Marconi, Metropolitan Vickers, BTH, GEC, Western Electric and Radio Communication Co.
The company was granted a four year licence to transmit. Its income was from a share of the ten-shilling licence fee for owning a wireless and from a 10% royalty from the sale of a wireless. It spent the money on building a broadcast network and developing early broadcast technology. The ‘big six’ shareholders made virtually no money from the company but did gain financially through the sale of wireless sets and other related products.
By the end of 1926 when the 4 year licence expired the company had created a viable broadcasting service with over 2 million licence holders, broadcasting had established itself as not just a medium of communication but as a medium of entertainment and education and huge technological advances had been made.
The big change was in 1927, with the expiry of the operating licence for the British Broadcasting Company a new organisation was formed - the British Broadcasting Corporation which was formed by Royal Charter and inherited the broadcasting infrastructure from the original BBCompany. Instead of a limited company with shareholders and directors the new corporation was run by a Board of Governors with the intention that it should be independent of commercial and political pressures - although ultimate powers were reserved to Parliament!
The original charter of 1927 was a simple 10 page document with the majority being concerned with the structure and governance of the new corporation - regarding content there was very little : To collect news of and information relating to current events in any part of the world and in any manner that may be thought fit and to establish and subscribe to newsagencies.
It could be argued that the funding of the British Broadcasting Company from 1922 to 1926 by licence fee and royalties was essential for the development of a viable public broadcasting network here in the UK. However, times change - (all except the funding model which has stayed stuck in the 1920’s!).
If anyone is still awake and made it this far I finish with a quote from Edward, first Baron Thurlow:-
‘Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?’
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
That is so far from "the only way to go" that there is no possibility it might happen. It would completely destroy the BBC.
FishFright
More wheels than sense
oh dear, that would a thing
nogoodnamesleft
Senior Member
The trouble is that these days increasing numbers are saying they no longer want to watch the BBC, there are plenty of alternatives, plenty of competitors.
If you enjoy Sky's output you pay Sky for it. If you enjoy Netflix output you pay Netflix for it. If you enjoy Amazon Prime output you pay Amazon for it. But those that enjoy the BBC output seem to expect everybody else to pay for it so they can get it cheaper.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
It really isn't about "those who enjoy BBC output". It is about the BBC being "public service broadcasting", not about them appealing enough to the masses for them to stump up subscriptions.
As such, they use a completely different model to Netflix et al.
Whether that should be funded by everyone, out of general taxation (or a specif tax), or whether it should be from a licence as at present is debatable. But it absolutely should NOT go to the sort of subscription model offered by those, or an advertising funded service. Either of those start pushing down the road of producing content to serve subscribers or advertisers, rather than public service content.
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
It would appear that an awful lot of people are increasingly not interested in whatever the BBC deem to be "public service content" - with up to half a million* ex-viewers per year voting with their wallet to no longer pay the licence fee.
*5.9 million decrease in the 6 years from mid-2018 to mid-2026 and the rate of drop is accelerating. Source: Google AI.
*5.9 million decrease in the 6 years from mid-2018 to mid-2026 and the rate of drop is accelerating. Source: Google AI.
nogoodnamesleft
Senior Member
I don’t see the "public service " aspect to BBC TV broadcasting. The programs that some time back would have been "public service" have either been closed down or had their budgets cut to the point where they are a complete waste of time (eg Newsnight).
Other commercial channels (not getting money from the TV Licence) do better in terms of "Public Service ".
These days it's about entertainment and audience numbers.
