BBC licence fee poll.

[technodup]

Not sure why they're relevant?

[TTwiggy]

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

While many people may want to watch programs about dancing, nature, science and history also have a place. And the BBC does these better than anyone else.

In your opinion. Many disagree.

I'm struggling here to think of a better nature doc maker than Attenborough, a longer-running science program than The Sky At Night or a better presenter for popularising science than Brian Cox.

[technodup]

TTwiggy said:

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

While many people may want to watch programs about dancing, nature, science and history also have a place. And the BBC does these better than anyone else.

In your opinion. Many disagree.

I'm struggling here to think of a better nature doc maker than Attenborough, a longer-running science program than The Sky At Night or a better presenter for popularising science than Brian Cox.

It's a fair cop. Take my money.

Still not heard a good argument as to why Wayne and Waynetta should pay for Tarquin to watch The Sky At Night though.

[TTwiggy]

technodup said:

t's a fair cop. Take my money.

Still not heard a good argument as to why Wayne and Waynetta should pay for Tarquin to watch The Sky At Night though.

Sarcasm aside, 'Wayne and partner' get Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice, Eastenders, and many other 'populist' shows. As they should, because providing a broad spectrum of programming is part of the BBC's charter. But if they had to chase ratings for commercial reasons these would be the only shows to survive.

Of course many people don't watch this sort of stuff, but are happy that Wayne and co can and do.

[Halb]

technodup said:

hey'd likely stop. Which won't be much of a problem because by definition hardly anyone watches them.

Why should the masses pay for someone else's special interest? Pay for it yourself.

But in any case special interests are well catered for elsewhere. Youtube is chock full of increasingly well made content on every niche subject anyone's ever thought of. I've seen Vice documentaries better than any BBC offering.

The world is changing, and the BBC is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The need for a well funded public broadcaster was prevalent at the past, and still currently so, as you say, things are changing, and the rise of this new democratic and proletarian medium is creating a new age of entertainment. Public broadcasting wasn't just about special interest, it was for all, and even though a person may not watch the BBC, they reap the rewards of they watch any other UK station, nothing exists in a vacuum and the UK situation was helped yo be superior to most other places for a long time thanks to the BBC.
The Beeb isn't quite irrelevant just yet, difficult to see how it could be, but I guess that is a possible future.
The UK market wouldn't survive a commercialised Beeb. It all depends how the new tech goes, how decent speeds get rolled out in this silly country, if any new regulation comes into effect, if private companies like youtube fk about with their content (they already do that now using algorithms to stifle anything they don't like, as well as malicious right to use issues). I can foresee some sort of subscription method perhaps, but that would be part of a wider change in the whole set-up.

[Cotty]

C70R said:

Cotty said:

C70R said:

iPlayer allows you to download BBC programmes and watch online, and there is (I believe) an iPlayer app on the Xbox too (meaning you could watch live or on catchup if you chose).

If I did that I would need a licence and for the amount I would use it, its not worth it. Cheaper the buy the odd BBC DVD once a year, like Planet Earth 2 £8 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Planet-Earth-DVD-David-At...

So, how many times a year would you spend £8 on a DVD?

As I said once, possibly twice if something came up.

So over the years I have a number of BBC DVD's for a fraction of what the licence cost.

Death in Paradise
Round the world in 80 days
The Life Collection: David Attenborough
Life on Mars
Planet Earth

[TTwiggy]

Cotty said:

As I said once, possibly twice if something came up.

So over the years I have a number of BBC DVD's for a fraction of what the licence cost.

Death in Paradise
Round the world in 80 days
The Life Collection: David Attenborough
Life on Mars
Planet Earth

You're happy to fund the BBC then, but you object to the licence fee?

[Nothingtoseehere]

TTwiggy said:

You're happy to fund the BBC then, but you object to the licence fee?

They could be from cex for about a tenner the lot.

[C70R]

Cotty said:

C70R said:

Cotty said:

C70R said:

iPlayer allows you to download BBC programmes and watch online, and there is (I believe) an iPlayer app on the Xbox too (meaning you could watch live or on catchup if you chose).

If I did that I would need a licence and for the amount I would use it, its not worth it. Cheaper the buy the odd BBC DVD once a year, like Planet Earth 2 £8 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Planet-Earth-DVD-David-At...

So, how many times a year would you spend £8 on a DVD?

As I said once, possibly twice if something came up.

So over the years I have a number of BBC DVD's for a fraction of what the licence cost.

Death in Paradise
Round the world in 80 days
The Life Collection: David Attenborough
Life on Mars
Planet Earth

Cool. So, the licence fee definitely isn't worth it for you. However, you're a bit of an outlier relative to the norm.

[Cotty]

TTwiggy said:

You're happy to fund the BBC then, but you object to the licence fee?

I suppose it is funding to a small extent, so in answer to your question yes and I object to the licence fee.

There are lots of free to view channels out there, I don't see why people have to pay a licence to watch free content. I watch stuff on YouTube I don't need to pay a third party a fee to watch it.

[TTwiggy]

Cotty said:

I suppose it is funding to a small extent, so in answer to your question yes and I object to the licence fee.

There are lots of free to view channels out there, I don't see why people have to pay a licence to watch free content. I watch stuff on YouTube I don't need to pay a third party a fee to watch it.

You understand though that it costs money to produce content and that the money has to come from somewhere?

[Jiebo]

I havent paid for about 8 years. I live in a secure development so the monkey 'investigators' can't even get close to my door without illegally trespassing.

They must have send me hundreds of letters during this time, no of which have been addressed to me. I wonder what all that paper, printing and postage has cost the public?

[Cotty]

TTwiggy said:

You understand though that it costs money to produce content and that the money has to come from somewhere?

Yes and I am contributing to that by buying the DVD. The same way when I buy films and TV shows not produced by the BBC.

I watched Lucifer on Amazon. It did not rely on a licence fee to produce it.

Edited by Cotty on Friday 21st July 16:17

[TTwiggy]

Jiebo said:

I wonder what all that paper, printing and postage has cost the public?

Indeed. You could just pay the licence of course...

[Cotty]

TTwiggy said:

Jiebo said:

I wonder what all that paper, printing and postage has cost the public?

Indeed. You could just pay the licence of course...

Not necessary if Jiebo does not watch live TV

[TTwiggy]

Cotty said:

I watched Lucifer on Amazon. It did not rely on a licence fee to produce it.

Edited by Cotty on Friday 21st July 16:17

No, it relied on Fox to produce it from the money they get from advertising. They then sold it to Amazon who charge you to watch it. Running a download service is very different to producing original content however. Netflix and Amazon are now moving into this arena but it's tiny steps compared to the BBC's current output.

[TTwiggy]

Cotty said:

TTwiggy said:

Jiebo said:

I wonder what all that paper, printing and postage has cost the public?

Indeed. You could just pay the licence of course...

Not necessary if Jiebo does not watch live TV

Well I suppose it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there's two of you...

[Cotty]

TTwiggy said:

No, it relied on Fox to produce it from the money they get from advertising. They then sold it to Amazon who charge you to watch it. Running a download service is very different to producing original content however. Netflix and Amazon are now moving into this arena but it's tiny steps compared to the BBC's current output.

Well perhaps if they stopped paying people stupid money they could produce more original content that people would be willing to pay for.

[TTwiggy]

Cotty said:

TTwiggy said:

No, it relied on Fox to produce it from the money they get from advertising. They then sold it to Amazon who charge you to watch it. Running a download service is very different to producing original content however. Netflix and Amazon are now moving into this arena but it's tiny steps compared to the BBC's current output.

Well perhaps if they stopped paying people stupid money they could produce more original content that people would be willing to pay for.

Eh? They produce loads of original content. And the money they pay presenters is small beer compared to other costs. Salaries are also market led - I'm not sure if it's been mentioned on this thread but when Susanna Reid moved from the BBC to ITV her salary went from circa £250k to over £1million.

[Cotty]

TTwiggy said:

Eh? They produce loads of original content.

Yes I agree, but they could make more. and if it was quality stuff it would be self funding.