BBC license fee to go up by £15. Will you keep paying it?

[Count Steer]

Imagine if a foreign country (one of the ones that some of you like to complain about because you think they're mean to people) had a state TV channel that you were forced to pay for even if you didn't want to.

I thought lots of countries had state broadcasters? Not many of them on the scale of the BBC though. I'd agree that the BBC is too big and does a lot of stuff it really shouldn't. I'd sack off stuff like R1, R2 and local radio, BBC3 etc but that's all down to personal preference.

If I was an 'independent' media outfit I'd also ask what they're doing competing in the commercial space with UKTV (Dave, Yesterday etc). The BBC will argue that no licence money goes into them but I think they often monetize stuff that was made with licence money - which is a good/bad thing depending how you look at it.

On balance, it's far from perfect but I'd rather it was there doing news and journalistic stuff than have to rely only on Sky, GBNews etc.

[the_priest]

I pay it as the wife watches something on BBC and iPlayer thingy. I sometimes look at the online news stuff, but very seldom now. The web has more reliable sources, less bent in opinion and more accurate. BBC has become very leftist in its views and peddles things I find offensive.

[David]

How do you prove or disprove it though?

They famously couldnt discriminate between a tv and domestic appliances . .

[Count Steer]

I thought lots of countries had state broadcasters?

Probably, but I’m not aware of any that will prosecute you for refusing to fund it.

What? Like not paying your taxes?

[Mr. Dazzle]

I thought lots of countries had state broadcasters?

Probably, but I’m not aware of any that will prosecute you for refusing to fund it.

What? Like not paying your taxes?

Well...people often say "I pay road tax!" as some kind of argument that pot holes should be fixed.

As you point out, many companies* have state broadcasters funded by the tax payer. Here is an example, perhaps the only example in the UK?, of a direct tax going straight to the thing associated with it. Fuel duty doesn't pay for roads exclusively, booze duty doesn't pay for the NHS exclusively etc. but the TV 'tax' does pay for TV directly.

Honestly - I'd pay the licence fee just for wildlife docs I've watched a few non-BBC ones on Netflix and nat-Geo ones on Disney+ with Baby D recently, the BBC made ones absolutely blow them out of the water. It actually surprised me how much better the Beeb's ones are. I'd not watched any non-BBC ones up until then.

'course, there was a time when lots of programmes on the BBC were as good as the flagship Attenborough series still are, but they're few and far between now

*Edit: Ha! Freudian slip? I of course mean "countries"

[KungFooBob]

I only realised on Sunday that you could 'red button' Planet Earth III and watch it in UHD... Glad I bought that 4k OLED now!

[Mr. Dazzle]

'tis true.

S'also the only country where the national broadcaster is directly funded by the people actually using it, rather than by whomever happens to be in power at a given moment and where that funding is completely optional. All other 'state funded' broadcasters cost the hypothetical viewer money whether they watch TV or not.

I don't think it's a particularly great example of the UK being shit or corrupt TBH.

[DefTrap]

Imagine if ...

... they just incorporated it into all the other taxes so that it wasn't specifically for "that bloody left-wing BBC".

This debate has been going on for as long as anyone can remember. I can recall as a stoodent hiding from the license man 35 years ago - not because I was/am principled about the use of the funding, or because I objected to the mandatory nature, but because I was a self-centred little twat, and the idea of someone giving me something for nowt and then asking for payment later was hilarious.

I think change is coming, 10/20 years ago I watched quite a bit of Beeb content, these days very little, they have to compete for my attention against all the other services. I don't think the model of there's-this-free-thing-pay-if-you-want really works any more. A vast number of people are already streaming live sports and fillums on hooky FireSticks to avoid paying the vast number of subscription to access ALL this content - theft of content isn't really a big deal anymore. The Beeb is effectively a charity case at this stage.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

'tis true.

S'also the only country where the national broadcaster is directly funded by the people actually using it, rather than by whomever happens to be in power at a given moment and where that funding is completely optional. All other 'state funded' broadcasters cost the hypothetical viewer money whether they watch TV or not.

I don't think it's a particularly great example of the UK being shit or corrupt TBH.

The problem is the people that don't use it also have to pay for it.

[Mr. Dazzle]

'tis true.

S'also the only country where the national broadcaster is directly funded by the people actually using it, rather than by whomever happens to be in power at a given moment and where that funding is completely optional. All other 'state funded' broadcasters cost the hypothetical viewer money whether they watch TV or not.

I don't think it's a particularly great example of the UK being shit or corrupt TBH.

The problem is the people that don't use it also have to pay for it.

That'd be even more the case if it was Tax funded.

I get that you can own a TV and not watch BBC content, but you gotta draw the 'where do you police it?' line somewhere.

[Taipan]

It is out of date and I dislike the legal requirement, increasingly so the more I think about it. I think it should be changed to a subscription service. Would I pay for it then, probably not as the more I think about it the more i realise how little BBC we watch. After some thought, Masterchef is all I could come up with and that's the wife's choice, not mine. She'd not subscribe to the BBC just for that either, so I guess it'd go?

[Taipan]

I don't think it's a particularly great example of the UK being shit or corrupt TBH.

It's an awful example because you are so used to it that it hardly even registers as anything wrong with it.

At least it's currently legal to switch it off though, even if you are forced to pay for it when you didn't ask for it or don't want it.

That's very much the case for us. It's just a household bill you had to pay without thought, same as utilities really. But with the advent of subscription services like Sky/Netflix/Prime etc, it has made me question it and why I should be forced to pay it.

[Yorick]

Being a pedantic, it's the TV licence, not the BBC licence

IIRC when it first came out, it was a required licence to listen to TV and radio broadcasts.


I don't care anyway

[Mr. Dazzle]

Yeah but your original statement was....

Imagine if a foreign country (one of the ones that some of you like to complain about because you think they're mean to people) had a state TV channel that you were forced to pay for even if you didn't want to.

That's exactly how every State TV channel except the BBC does work You're forced to pay for it (via tax) even if you don't want to. Even if you didn't own a TV you'd still pay for it. And what happens if you don't pay your taxes?

I don't think it's a perfect set up, but I hardly think it's "awful" either. It's better than being taxed for it

[DefTrap]

The problem is the people that don't use it also have to pay for it.

Just one of a long list of stuff I don't use, there's plenty of examples, the difference is that this one is separately funded. Masses of potential for additional griping.

[Mr. Dazzle]

The problem is the people that don't use it also have to pay for it.

Just one of a long list of stuff I don't use

Pretty much.

It must rank at least 77th on the list of things I pay for but don't use much

I don't even have a choice on the 76 things above it.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

The problem is the people that don't use it also have to pay for it.

That'd be even more the case if it was Tax funded.

I get that you can own a TV and not watch BBC content, but you gotta draw the 'where do you police it?' line somewhere.

Fairly simple, those that want to watch the BBC pay for it, just like Netflix, at the moment I being forced to pay for a Corporation that supplies a product I don't want, why does it need to be tax funded, it doesn't supply an essential service.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Well it always used to be the case that the BBC made programmes which were worth making, but which wouldn't stand on their own feet purely commercially. That's still the case to a certain extent, but it's not as good as it used to be. You only have to look at the quality of 'documentaries' on most commercial stations to see the value in that model.

To be fair though, there are some pretty alright documentaries on Netflix, but loads of them are 'in association with the BBC' anyway

I'd also be really careful in what I call an 'essential service' worthy of tax payer money too. I bet we've all got things we're happy to spend tax money on and things we hate spending tax money on, I also bet many of the things on our respective lists don't coincide.

[Count Steer]

I conclude that people will happily pay money for media that agrees with them and don't want to pay for media that tries to represent anyone else or their views. Happy in their echo chambers, nodding along and occasionally muttering 'they're spot on y'know' and 'exactly!' (Ideally they'd get that free too, and probably can because some squillionaire owns it).

The Beeb (for the most part) tries to be all things to all people so it irritates half of us half the time then flips and upsets the other half.

[DefTrap]

Yeah and we should be mindful about "the BBC not listening to what we, the consumer, wants". It's already edging closer to numbskull News and "celebrity doodad" style content like the ad-funded services. If this become a democracy then it'll be wall-to-wall "my 50 stone dad's a hamster!" content.