Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! Vol 3

[s2art]

Problem was Portillos analysis was simply wrong. The youngsters he was talking about arent watching BBC because iPlayer asks if they have a licence, a)
there are no consequences for simply saying yes, and b) a lot of the time they will be in a building that does have a licence. That and not being able to watch BBC abroad when everyone and his dog has a VPN (some browsers have one built in).

[markyb_lcy]

s2art said:

Problem was Portillos analysis was simply wrong. The youngsters he was talking about arent watching BBC because iPlayer asks if they have a licence, a)
there are no consequences for simply saying yes, and b) a lot of the time they will be in a building that does have a licence. That and not being able to watch BBC abroad when everyone and his dog has a VPN (some browsers have one built in).

Yea, I think he oversimplified something in order to make his point (which was a valid one IMO). His main point being less about brits abroad being able to use BBC content and more about taking that content to a wider global audience.

[Murph7355]

markyb_lcy said:

s2art said:

Problem was Portillos analysis was simply wrong. The youngsters he was talking about arent watching BBC because iPlayer asks if they have a licence, a)
there are no consequences for simply saying yes, and b) a lot of the time they will be in a building that does have a licence. That and not being able to watch BBC abroad when everyone and his dog has a VPN (some browsers have one built in).

Yea, I think he oversimplified something in order to make his point (which was a valid one IMO). His main point being less about brits abroad being able to use BBC content and more about taking that content to a wider global audience.

Bingo.

And also that the number of people prepared to pay the license fee is diminishing as a result of how they take content/feel about the value.

Being squeezed at all sides but still desperate to cling on to the old way of doing things.

[markyb_lcy]

Murph7355 said:

Being squeezed at all sides but still desperate to cling on to the old way of doing things.

Like any other "good, old, British institution" then?

I think they should monetise the huge archives. I personally would gladly pay a quite considerable fee for lifetime unrestricted access.

[pingu393]

I cannot believe the iPlayer only asks a simple "Yes" "No" question. It should ask for your licence number. They could gain a lot of knowledge about people's preferences and good usage stats. They seem to want to fail.

[Murph7355]

pingu393 said:

I cannot believe the iPlayer only asks a simple "Yes" "No" question. It should ask for your licence number. They could gain a lot of knowledge about people's preferences and good usage stats. They seem to want to fail.

And they could also use it to allow access from anywhere.

The BBC have never seemed to like to do the simple stuff though...

[Big-Bo-Beep]

pingu393 said:

I cannot believe the iPlayer only asks a simple "Yes" "No" question. It should ask for your licence number. They could gain a lot of knowledge about people's preferences and good usage stats. They seem to want to fail.

one must wonder the number of ph posters who watch qt and actually have a current tv licence, probably just me, paying for all you deadbeats and hippies.

[tobinen]

I wonder if the BBC opened up to a subscription service for the ROW, it could bring in enough money so UK viewers no longer have to pay.

[Halb]

Just watched it.
Choo Choo was excellent, and the bloke on the left was ok. Choo Choo was prescient on the BBC I feel.

[pingu393]

Big-Bo-Beep said:

pingu393 said:

I cannot believe the iPlayer only asks a simple "Yes" "No" question. It should ask for your licence number. They could gain a lot of knowledge about people's preferences and good usage stats. They seem to want to fail.

one must wonder the number of ph posters who watch qt and actually have a current tv licence, probably just me, paying for all you deadbeats and hippies.

I pay, but it's in my wife's name - does that count? I consider it a worthwhile tax, and was very happy to pay when my over-75 year old mum's heart was still ticking. I pay by DD and don't notice the £13 a month - I'd only waste it on V-Power .

I'm not 100% sure, but I think if you are on Sky or Virgin, you have to give your licence number (or tick a box saying that they will inform the BBC) when you first sign up. It was over 20 years ago that this VIP Sky subscriber signed on the dotted line, so I can't remember.

You used to have to give you name and address if you bought a TV - I don't think that happens anymore, either.

[Thorodin]

Surely it's not a BBC licence. Even if you don't watch BBC progs you still have to buy the licence. It's about time the government absolved itself of the idea that they have to provide a public service broadcast and acknowledged it has become a private tax imposed by a non-governmental entity. The BBC now produces what IT likes rather than what the public wants. Tail wagging dog.

[Oilchange]

There is no logical argument for keeping this draconian tax. The licence needs to go and the beeb fund itself. I’m sure it would survive although not in this socialist form.

[Graveworm]

Oilchange said:

There is no logical argument for keeping this draconian tax. The licence needs to go and the beeb fund itself. I’m sure it would survive although not in this socialist form.

There is a logical argument, it may not persuade you, me or anyone it exists though. The logical argument is that it uniquely produces a ringfenced budget which cannot be re-allocated or leveraged. This increases the chance of it funding an independent broadcaster which is not reliant on commercial imperatives, external funding influences or even government budget allocation. So it can be impartial and produce some shows for educational & minority interests without needing to show a financial return.

No other model, I have seen, allows for that. If it fails it's a practical issue around fallibility not a logical one.

[Mort7]

And yet the BBC still chases ratings, and airs idiotic programmes designed to appeal to the hard of thinking. Isn't it about time that they started producing programmes that the rest of the world wants to buy, in order that those programmes become self-funding, and importing the best of what the rest of the world has to offer.

[Graveworm]

Mort7 said:

And yet the BBC still chases ratings, and airs idiotic programmes designed to appeal to the hard of thinking. Isn't it about time that they started producing programmes that the rest of the world wants to buy, in order that those programmes become self-funding, and importing the best of what the rest of the world has to offer.

Every other FTA broadcaster does exactly that, and it's what they do with the world service. Many of their programs are already more than self funding. I agree they should be less commercial, in what they make, but it's damned if they do, as small audiences would be used to bash them as much as screening popular programs not being a USP. The licence fee, would also need to be higher. How would BBC parliament, BBC learning/teach, minority sports coverage, local news and community other language programs get made and broadcast under your model?

[markyb_lcy]

Mort7 said:

And yet the BBC still chases ratings, and airs idiotic programmes designed to appeal to the hard of thinking. Isn't it about time that they started producing programmes that the rest of the world wants to buy, in order that those programmes become self-funding, and importing the best of what the rest of the world has to offer.

Unfortunately a vast majority of the public is hard of thinking.

[Halb]

Graveworm said:

There is a logical argument, it may not persuade you, me or anyone it exists though. The logical argument is that it uniquely produces a ringfenced budget which cannot be re-allocated or leveraged. This increases the chance of it funding an independent broadcaster which is not reliant on commercial imperatives, external funding influences or even government budget allocation. So it can be impartial and produce some shows for educational & minority interests without needing to show a financial return.

No other model, I have seen, allows for that. If it fails it's a practical issue around fallibility not a logical one.

Most excellently and logically worded.

[Mort7]

Graveworm said:

Mort7 said:

And yet the BBC still chases ratings, and airs idiotic programmes designed to appeal to the hard of thinking. Isn't it about time that they started producing programmes that the rest of the world wants to buy, in order that those programmes become self-funding, and importing the best of what the rest of the world has to offer.

Every other FTA broadcaster does exactly that, and it's what they do with the world service. Many of their programs are already more than self funding. I agree they should be less commercial, in what they make, but it's damned if they do, as small audiences would be used to bash them as much as screening popular programs not being a USP. The licence fee, would also need to be higher. How would BBC parliament, BBC learning/teach, minority sports coverage, local news and community other language programs get made and broadcast under your model?

Well the BBC has a significant income:-

"The total income from licence fees was £3.83 billion in 2017–18 of which £655.3 million or 17.1% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (75.7%) of the BBC's total income of £5.0627 billion in 2017–2018."

This, as I understand it, puts its income below Sky, but well above other terrestrial channels.

If they kept their current funding, concentrated on quality programmes rather than commercial stuff like Eastenders (which they could sell off), slimmed down their management structure, were regularly audited to ensure best value, made their presenters BBC employees rather than contractors, cut presenter's salaries (are Graham Norton, Gary Lineker, Naga Munchetty, etc, really worth that much?) then they'd probably manage. They might even be able to afford free licence fees for the over 75s.

[DeepEnd]

Halb said:

Graveworm said:

There is a logical argument, it may not persuade you, me or anyone it exists though. The logical argument is that it uniquely produces a ringfenced budget which cannot be re-allocated or leveraged. This increases the chance of it funding an independent broadcaster which is not reliant on commercial imperatives, external funding influences or even government budget allocation. So it can be impartial and produce some shows for educational & minority interests without needing to show a financial return.

No other model, I have seen, allows for that. If it fails it's a practical issue around fallibility not a logical one.

Most excellently and logically worded.

Yes, very well put.

[Cobnapint]

tobinen said:

I wonder if the BBC opened up to a subscription service for the ROW, it could bring in enough money so UK viewers no longer have to pay.

Fine in theory, but the ROW could just use a VPN to pick a UK IP and watch it for nowt. In the same way that I do when I'm over seas and want to catch up on stuff.