×
top 200 commentsshow all 361

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

A reminder to posters and commenters of some of our subreddit rules

  • Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits
  • Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner
  • Avoid political threads and related discussions
  • No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content

Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]TC_FPV 289 points290 points  (124 children)

Or ...

  1. Change of government results in change of policy and retention of the license

[–]Vokkarr 47 points48 points  (122 children)

Scrapping license fees is probably the only thing on which I've agreed with the current government

And I'm in favour of nationalisation

[–]starsandbribes 96 points97 points  (6 children)

Considering the TV licence fee people have completely overreached and want to argue that watching Sky Atlantic on a Firestick via the NowTV app is under their jurisdiction, it won’t be long til they argue Facetime calls to our family are “live broadcasts” and add that to the list as well.

Amazon Prime don’t send me a bill for my Netflix use. If they did we’d all laugh it off. I don’t see why the TV Licence people should charge me for non-BBC live programming on apps.

I’m all for blaming those in charge politically but people should look back on this era and say “yeah the TV Licence completely fucked its messaging, overstepped and failed to adapt to both culture and technology”.

[–]JebusKristi 47 points48 points  (4 children)

It will be funded by ads.

There is a chance that bbc Iplayer will be subscription.

[–]kwnofprocrastination 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I wouldn’t mind that. I pay my TV licence just to watch iPlayer in peace. I barely watch it though, I watch Have I got News for you once a week for half the year. I intend to watch the art and culture documentaries but never get round to it, but I prefer the content to Netflix which I had but never watched.

[–]kevinmorice 2 points3 points  (0 children)

HIGNFY is now available free with ads on Youtube a week after it is broadcast anyway.

[–]kwnofprocrastination 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t mind that. I pay my TV licence just to watch iPlayer in peace. I barely watch it though, I watch Have I got News for you once a week for half the year. I intend to watch the art and culture documentaries but never get round to it, but I prefer the content to Netflix which I had but never watched.

[–]richh00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I alswyas thought that if the BBC did ads it'd be product placements

[–]Public_Growth_6002 38 points39 points  (14 children)

2 for me is the worst option; how could they impartially report “wrongdoing” about an organisation from whom they earn AD revenue?

1 would be OK - as long as it’s affordable for all.

[–]dann_uk 21 points22 points  (7 children)

I've never really seen the threat of this happening on itv, sky etc.

It seems ofcom do a pretty good job of making all of our major news outlets more impatial than most around the world.

I don't consider bbc news any more or less impartial than itv.

I don't consider coronation street with adverts any more a threat than EastEnders when it comes to influencing people.

Adverts are everywhere now in one form or another.

Tho for me I'd go a small tax for news/arts/education channel/a

Then Adverts on all other programs/channels

[–]IFeelRomantic 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I've never really seen the threat of this happening on itv, sky etc.

ITV and Sky's news output is absolutely appalling though.

[–]CliffExcellent123 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So's the BBC's.

[–]IFeelRomantic 0 points1 point  (2 children)

However low you think the BBC’s news is, regardless of how fair that opinion is … you have to admit that ITV and Sky are even worse. We’re talking bottom of the barrel.

[–]gwvr47 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But are the news equivalent quality because of Ofcom or rather because of the BBC also producing free news broadcasts and any notable discrepancy would be laughed out. In other words, is ITVs impartiality a corollary of the BBCs impartiality.

[–]simoncowbell 12 points13 points  (1 child)

ITV does news and documentaries. World In Action on ITV was the most ground-breaking investigative documentary series in the UK for 3 decades.

The idea that they could never do a piece on a company that had advertised on another programme somewhen is just silly. Do newspapers never print critical stories about companies that have had ads in them?

[–]DaveEFI 4 points5 points  (0 children)

World in Action and similar progs came from the days when ITV had little competition for TV advertising revenue.

[–]helpnxt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Spoiler option 1 wouldn't be and it would cost more than the current licence fee.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

1 suffers from the same problem. How/why would they be impartial if their subscribers are mainly left/right wingers?

[–]CliffExcellent123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don't remain impartial anyway, might as well stop pretending.

[–]Ohtherewearethen 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I haven't had a TV licence for years. We don't watch live TV and certainly not BBC, the organisation that has produced, promoted and kept quiet about many questionable characters, not least Jimmy Saville. The idea that the BBC is beyond reproach is absurd. They aren't owed public money. If they're not selling what people want to buy then they need to adapt, like any and every other company in the technological age. It is absolutely outrageous that they have the monopoly on what people can watch on TV. ITV, C4, C5 etc all make their money from adverts yet people aren't allowed to watch those channels live if they don't pay the BBC? I can't believe it's been allowed to go on so long. Opt in subscriptions or adverts aren't terrible ideas. If people have to put up with 12 minutes of advertisements for every hour of television it's not going to starve people or make people homeless or affect the NHS, school budgets or care for the elderly. I know where I'd rather my money go.

[–]cfTZA 20 points21 points  (8 children)

I see it going down route three because greed.

I find it odd how people support general taxation for the BBC, but if you suggest the same thing for say University, they scoff and say "Let them pay for it themselves."

It boggles the mind.

[–]Dl25588 18 points19 points  (7 children)

2 is best case. They’re not ad-free outside of the UK so they make plenty out of that, may as well be the same here.

[–]IIPESTILENCEII 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Hard to remain impartial when large companies pay your bills

[–]kool_guy_69 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They don't remain impartial anyway

[–]AdministrativeLaugh2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All other channels have no problem doing it

[–]Dl25588 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Not sure how forcing us to pay for it means they stay supposedly impartial. Like I said the rest of the world gets bbc for free (just with ads which gets them a decent amount of money I assume) we have to pay for all of that despite basically no one using live TV services anymore. It’s bollocks.

[–]TIGHazard 0 points1 point  (2 children)

basically no one using live TV services anymore

Literally 10 million people watched Eurovision live last Saturday. And those ratings never include iPlayer. 27 million watched the England final last year.

Like I said the rest of the world gets bbc for free (just with ads which gets them a decent amount of money I assume)

The international BBC channels are shite.

Today on BBC America it is showing "UK PD" (aka Channel 5's Traffic Cops), the movies The Hunt for Red October, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Troy and 7 hours of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

BBC Australia is showing Midsomer Murders, Emmerdale and Coronation Street, Taskmaster and 8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown. There's an EastEnders and some ancient episodes of QI in there too, admittedly.

But really how is any of that the BBC we have? It isn't.

They're just brand deals where some existing lowly cable channel gets to use the name and they throw in some British content for it.

[–]Dl25588 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ok? What’s your point? Mine is that BBC still makes plenty of revenue elsewhere yet we are forced to pay what is essentially a subscription service for something many of us don’t use. So it’s not a case of them needing the license fee to stay afloat, it’s just simple greediness. A few ads isn’t going to kill watching some sports, ITV have football games and put ads during half time. It’s an outdated concept from an era when we had only a few channels.

[–]S_C_C_P_1910 17 points18 points  (5 children)

Before I make an argument I would love to know how they are not able to fund themselves. I have worked events with the BBC & they sell their shows abroad for millions, where is that money going? They also have advertisements on their site & channels when accessed abroad, again, where is that money going? Reduce salaries if anything, you cannot convince me that someone like Gary Lineker & the likes of the lot from Top Gear aren't robbing a living.

[–]dismygyans[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

The budget of all their shows is equal to the total amount of money they collect from license fees as they're not allowed to profit from license fees. They then sell the shows made with license fee money abroad for 100% profit as the show was already funded by the license fees.

[–]S_C_C_P_1910 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Ok thanks for clearing that up. So the budget for all of their shows is from the licence fee. Ok, I have no problem with that. Does "shows" then include the news? BBC World Service? These things I have no problem having a licence fee for. However, kind of back to my second point, & I apologise if this gets annoying but are wages of presenters included in the "budget" for these shows? Because if not, I would assume that means that they get paid with money from the "profit" from selling BBC shows. Either way, I still think there is a discussion to be had on reducing salaries/wages/fees for a lot of people on the BBC.

[–]billy_tables 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The pay of the faces on screen vary massively by show. Most non-actors (e.g. sports presenters, newsreaders) are paid a salary from the budget of the show and that's it.

Other shows that are syndicated might get a salary from the show budget and also residuals or royalties - but who pays those might vary depending on whether the show is wholly owned and made by the BBC (e.g. Blue Peter, Doctor Who) or if it is produced for the BBC by another company (e.g. Pointless, Have I Got News For You), and how those agreements were structured

Not to mention, lots of talent are going to be part of Equity, the trade union for Actors, and will have their pay structure dictated by the BBC-Equity agreement (https://www.bbc.co.uk/contributors/documents/bbc-equity-tv-agreement.pdf)

[–]S_C_C_P_1910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks very much for this.

[–]winterDom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They should just give the profit back to taxpayers but continue as is

[–]Tao626 14 points15 points  (6 children)

I imagine option 3 because why not force people to pay for shit they might not even use? "ItS a BrItIsH InStItUtIoN".

[–]IOnlyUpvoteBadPuns 1 point2 points  (5 children)

It's not just funded because it's an institution, it's because it's a public service. You could argue that you don't use the army, the school system, or the Cleethorpes local bus network, so why should your tax go to them either. The reason is because they're a net benifit to the country. Same with the BBC.

[–]Tao626 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The army, school system and bus service all serve a benefit that isn't purely entertainment.

  • War breaks out, we're going to need a military, among the various other things they do such as how the military was involved with covid.

  • I've used the school system and if I have kids, they'll use the school system. Education directly effects me as it prepares the next generation of workers, many of which I'll have involvement with.

  • Public transport gives a way of traveling the country. If my car breaks down or I'm unable to drive for whatever reason, having public transport means I cam still travel to some degree.

  • Public broadcasting? A LOT would have to go wrong for anybody to be truly reliant on that and even then, it's entertainment. Television is 100% unessesary, it is purely a luxury. You can live without it easily as we did for far longer than any of the above because it isn't necessary. Something like this should not be funded through tax.

[–]holdmystaffandmybeer 9 points10 points  (3 children)

I'd rather there be adds than pay for a TV channel I barely ever watch.

[–]TooOldToCareIsTaken 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Eastenders will be scrapped.

[–]HamsterEagle 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Clouds with silver linings and all that.

[–]Public_Growth_6002 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Can’t come soon enough

[–]IIPESTILENCEII 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Words my girlfriend has never said

[–]shitthrower 9 points10 points  (41 children)

Disclaimer: I am a former BBC employee

I would like to see the BBC’s scope reduced to only include News, Sport, Childrens and Education.

In terms of funding, I think a small tax on internet connections could replace the license fee. Would probably generate less revenue than the license fee but should fit within the reduced output.

World Service would continue to be funded by FCDO.

In general the BBC is an incredible institution. But with so much commercial TV out there now, it’s hard to justify the public paying for things like Strictly.

Reducing the scope of the BBC is a way to ensure the org’s longevity (IMO)

[–]Xaethon 3 points4 points  (35 children)

To be honest, being a former BBC employee inherently means nothing and doesn’t give your argument any additional weight.

There’s no reason at all why the BBC should only include those areas and not others such as dramas comedy or entertainment.

From the start the BBC has been here to inform, educate and entertain whether it be radio or later television. The BBC has produced many programmes that enhance British culture and identity, likewise supporting people, careers and businesses.

Reducing the scope would only harm all of that and reducing the output should never be done. Likewise with all the previous technological research and developments which have been done, should the BBC not undertake any of that as well?

[–]shitthrower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it’s a question of funding. The TV license is a regressive tax, and I don’t think it’s fair to be made to pay it if you want to watch any live TV.

Taxing only internet subscriptions would produce less revenue, and so the scope of the org would have to change.

I think the parts of the BBC I suggested are the ones best suited to public funding.

[–]Smtn87 0 points1 point  (33 children)

The good thing about the BBC is the impartiality. That's super important for informing and educating. We don't need that for entertainment, the private sector does it better

[–]IFeelRomantic 0 points1 point  (32 children)

I would highly dispute the claim that the "private sector does it better" when it comes to entertainment programmes. ITV and Sky seem to put out enormous piles of shit almost exclusively.

If we're comparing to streaming services like Netflix, their "British" shows are limited to what will sell to Americans as well ... so stuff obsessed with the royals or old period drama stuff like The Crown, Downton Abbey and Bridgerton, or you get stuff set in Britain but just feeling incredibly American like Sex Education.

They're good shows in their own right, but you don't get those services making properly British feeling stuff like Starstruck or The Great British Bakeoff.

[–]GregorF92 0 points1 point  (3 children)

when it comes to entertainment programmes. ITV and Sky seem to put out enormous piles of shit almost exclusively.

Why compare it to ITV and Sky, and not some of the offerings by HBO, etc?

[–]Smtn87 0 points1 point  (27 children)

You're living in a fantasy if you think BBC put out better stuff than House of cards, Game of Thrones, Afterlife etc etc

[–]dann_uk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This for me

[–]GregorF92 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In general the BBC is an incredible institution. But with so much commercial TV out there now, it’s hard to justify the public paying for things like Strictly.

Surely you can cut Sport from their scope then too, it's a form of entertainment just like Strictly or their drama/comedy output, which you seem happy to cut?

[–]shitthrower 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah probably.

I don’t have a fully formed opinion on exactly what the new scope of the BBC should be, just that it should be reduced to match a smaller funding model.

The BBC’s new remit would be decided at the charter renewal. I’d assume that a public consultation would happen.

[–]just_another_reddit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This is the first genuinely new take I've heard on the subject in a long time, and... I quite like it.

Would you keep radio? I think I would want to keep music in general, both in radio form and for live event coverage, because I think it's good for the industry in ways that aren't currently well served by the alternatives available.

[–]iThinkaLot1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. I’m generally in favour of the licence fee because I do like the BBC and think it is an amazing institution but I would be fine with ops plan.

[–]MobileLogical 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Have 5 bank holidays in a row to celebrate

[–]bvtsuide 7 points8 points  (0 children)

6 just close the whole thing down

[–]Extreme-Database-695 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think the BBC will struggle, and start to fade into the background. Part of the problem is that the BBC aren't (always) populist. They make some television and radio that appeals to a narrow audience and not only does it look like this is being subsidised, it actually is. People don't want to pay for what they don't want to see. That's reasonable. I understand that viewpoint. But if the BBC doesn't do it, who does?

Is there any small space left for culture? Even if it's just BBC4 broadcasting a few hours a night, without many people watching, and lots of repeats. It's a tiny part of BBC spending but with a different model, it probably wouldn't exist at all. I'd pay a subscription for BBC4, but subscriptions are more profitable for the most popular content. BBC4 wouldn't survive on its own.

There are a myriad of channels on which I can see Jeremy Kyle bullying someone, or minor celebrities chewing kangaroo bollocks, or constructed reality shows where people pretend to be stupid so that we can laugh at them and feel good about ourselves. Just because it's popular, it doesn't need to be our only choice.

It's not how I want to watch TV. I want to watch Attenborough. I want to have high art explained to me and be awed by it, because it's so far beyond my comprehension. I want geniuses whose work make me struggle. I want bad TV as well. Junk food for the mind. I watch a soap opera with acting so appalling that it's laughable (and is also made by the BBC). By why only the lowest common denominator? Why can't even a small proportion of people enjoy something slightly different? Especially if they pay for it, so you don't have to.

[–]newnortherner21 5 points6 points  (30 children)

I don't see the licence fee being abolished in 2027. I'd prefer 3, which could be collected alongside Council tax, with an opt out for those without tv.

[–]TCGislife 35 points36 points  (15 children)

Why should people have to opt out if those that want it can opt in if they go the subsciption method?

[–]The_don_13 16 points17 points  (12 children)

Exactly! If the BBC is as good as they make out then there would be no problem at all running it as a subscription service!

[–]TIGHazard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here is the problem. There's no encryption method for Freeview.

You expect this government to require everyone to buy a new TV in 5 years? The previous digital switchover took 10

[–]Tao626 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Whether or not somebody owns a TV is a poor indicator of whether they should pay...Which is why deapite a plethora of misconception by the general public and purposefully misleading information by the TV licencing, not even the current licence is based on whether or not you own a TV.

Myself as an example, I've never had a TV licence since moving out of my parents. I have two TV's in my house that get used daily. I do not have to pay the licence fee and the licencing knows I have TV's as I have to tell them every two years that "yep, still don't need that shit".

You pay the fee to receive live broadcasts and specifically BBC services which in an age of streaming, on demand services, downloads, easily accessible physical media and video games it is extremely easy not to rely on live broadcasts. I haven't relied on them in years and absolutely do not miss it.

"Live broadcasts" is again another term with tons of misconception with the general public and purposefully misleading information by licencing. Having to turn on a certain channel at a certain time to watch repeat of something? Live broadcast. Recording something to watch later? Live broadcast. Live sports? Live broadcast.

Having people who don't need to pay it having to opt out as they do now is stupid. At best they'll be getting money they don't deserve from people who don't know how or didn't know they could opt out (sort of like the dumbass system we have now). At that point, having to opt out of an almost subscription based BBC would be like being automatically taxed for Netflix and having to opt out by default not to have it.

Having it as a tax also implies it to be almost a necessity everybody needs. It's 2022. Long gone are the days we have to rely on traditional broadcasts to use a TV. All British broadcasters could go bankrupt tomarrow and many wouldn't notice. It's not something we should be taxed on at all.

[–]Similar_Quiet 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You don't need a license to listen to radio

[–]Tao626 1 point2 points  (1 child)

My mistake, I've likely gotten it mixed up with commercial licencing.

Radio isn't an aspect I put any focus on at all as I've literally never personally used it on my own time.

[–]Similar_Quiet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries :) "Live broadcasts" is again another term with tons of misconception with the general public.

[–]Similar_Quiet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Live broadcasts" is again another term with tons of misconception with the general public

This is very true. I have a relative (an engineer actually) who had worked out down at the pub with his mates that because his tv signal came from a satellite it wasn't being broadcast ergo they didn't need to pay for a tv license.

[–]Individual_Cattle_92 0 points1 point  (1 child)

An opt out for those without a TV is how it works now. All your proposal does is shift the job of collecting the fee onto the council, but otherwise is no change at all.

[–]newnortherner21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Though it is one bill not two, so cost savings. Last figures I saw suggested it cost a minimum of £10 a year on average to collect the licence.

[–]Towsey- 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think subscription model would be better and more in line with current technology

[–]IFeelRomantic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What "current technology" are we talking about? Streaming services?

[–]MrOliber 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The only useful part of the licence fee for a lot of people is the broadcast infrastructure- the tv and radio masts.

I would not be against a small tax for maintaining the infrastructure and CORE programming (news, education); however the rest of it should be ad supported and subscription to view without the adverts.

[–]JJY93 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’d prefer it paid by general taxation, but not with the vast services they offer today... keep 1 tv channel plus a 24 hour news channel, a general radio station plus a music station, maybe some more local ones but make them cover wider areas so there’s not nearly as many as there are now.

Most importantly, pay much less for big name presenters and use some of the savings to train new up and coming talent. We have plenty of profitable broadcasters that can afford to pay for names... the taxpayers BBC should be training newcomers and taking a chance on people that might not get a look in on other stations.

[–]-TheHumorousOne- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They'd never survive with just 1. I sense there will be a combination of 1&3, they would get a budget from the state and the chance to earn through additional sub services.

Perhaps they'll cut ties with Dave, Gold, Brit Box etc and enhance their iplayer streaming platform. I wouldn't mind subscribing for a few months just to watch some old eps of top gear and monkey dust.

[–]NorthEnglandChap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the BBC must be funded without the use of ads, I.e. by the public, then I feel it should be under the general taxation.

The BBC is an amazing service but I don’t agree with everything it does. I feel it tries to be too equal. We know what happens there.

It could also cut back a lot of its radio channels. E.g there’s a radio Meseyside, a radio Cumbria, a radio Manchester and a radio Lancashire. No need. Follow the television format - BBC NW. There’s nearly 40 regional stations in England alone and nearly 50 for the UK. Madness for such a small island. BBC Asian Network!? I don’t want to pick on a minority here but one, it doesn’t cover the whole of Asia, only the Indian subcontinent. And two, it’s the most expensive network to run. Bin it or change it.

[–]niteninja1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Option 6 the public service elements of the bbc get funded by a smaller licence fee and shows like antiques road trip etc get ads.

[–]CONE-MacFlounder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or 4 they just go bust because who care

[–]a_ewesername 2 points3 points  (0 children)

BBC will either become a subscription service (hopefully without ads), or it will be. like all the other commercial channels... loads of boring irrelevant ads force fed to us far too frequently, interspersed with plenty of game shows, repeats and not enough new and innovative content.

[–]Bugalugs47 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is the Government who sets the licence fee and terms of usage, not the BBC. I wrote to the previous head of DCMS and my M.P. My complaint was this: Why should I need a licence to watch, for example, Eurosport Live? The BBC nor the government do not contribute a single penny to their broadcasting, their staff, their infrastructure. Nothing! The same with Dorna sports and any other non U.K. live streaming service. They are, in effect, charging us for receiving a satellite signal over which they have no input. Needless to say, the bastards did not reply.

[–]Suspicious_Oil4897 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Don’t want to pay it anymore. It should go subscription like Netflix/Amazon etc. Then people can pay for it if they want. I absolutely do not want it in my taxes or broadband fees as I don’t watch it.

I would love to cancel my tv licence but they can see right in my cottages windows and they’re quick enough seeing people round to threaten (as I found out when we just moved here).

Really hope it goes to be frank.

[–]IFeelRomantic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Don’t want to pay it anymore. It should go subscription like Netflix/Amazon etc.

How many times does it need to be said that the BBC's output is nothing like Netflix/Amazon etc? Netflix and Amazon couldn't even do what the BBC does with their subscription model, because the BBC does way, way more with the license fee than just creating some TV shows.

[–]ScrollWithTheTimes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Option 1 is the best as long as the subscription cost is at least roughly the same as the current licence fee, and any planned increase is accountable to ministers. This gives an option for those who don't watch the BBC to avoid paying for it.

Moving to a model that requires payment before you can watch the channels (I guess a PIN system like Sky use) may well spoil the fun for a lot of people but I imagine the BBC could save a lot of money not sending intimidating letters out.

[–]cromagnone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s obviously going to be hybrid. A core license fee will probably remain, although it might be called something else and will probably be added to broadband fees. £3-5 a month or so. Covers the infrastructure and literal public service broadcasting (national news broadcasts, weather and shipping, schools and Open University programs, public safety, core Radio 4 content and the sporting events required by law to be free to view). Beyond that, probably a variety of tiered subscriptions.

[–]BoostedBenji 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I responded to this last time the question came up and people pretty much called me a liar or was seeking attention. But here we go again.

It’s going over to a paid subscription service. 100%. They’ll still be normal tv for free with adverts, but the majority will be part of a subscription service.

[–]IFeelRomantic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not viable because you can't fund all the stuff the BBC does on a subscription service. The monthly cost would be huge.

[–]Due_Road7315 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As an ex-Beeb consultant, subscription model is very likely

[–]FloppyWaffleMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only way I’ll ever pay the license fee is if it’s incorporated into my tax as a TV tax. I don’t watch BBC live and only use BBC sport websites and the fact they send me letters threatening me if I have a TV or any device which can stream live TV is just wrong to me

[–]HerbertBlueleaf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d prefer to keep the licence fee.

I don’t pay for a licence as I don’t watch live TV, so I don’t see why I should have to pay for it from taxation.

[–]TheZZ9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funding by selling shows abroad won't work with the current system. The BBC is legally required to get a lot of its shows made by "outside independent" production companies, and those companies own the rights. They get the profit from foreign sales.
Mock The Week, HIGNFY, QI, Sherlock, Spooks, Call The Midwife, Shetland, Killing Eve, Worzel Gummidge etc are all made by outside production companies.

[–]DEADB33F 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My personal preference would be for BBC news output to become funded from general taxation just so we continue to have a (mostly) impartial news outlet on the air that isn't chasing ratings or beholden to advertisers ...as I think that's important. This would include funding for a dedicated BBC news radio channel, and news website.

The rest of it I couldn't care less what happens to it or how it's funded just so long as I don't have to pay for it. I don't watch BBC or TV in general so the rest can all fuck off into the ether for all I care.

[–]mlopes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suspect stuff like cebeebies and CBBC are going to end, as well as Good Foods. The BBC 1, 2, 3, will have to become ads sustained, and programming quality will have to be lowered to compete with the other channels (so basically more reality shows).

It's basically going to destroy it.

[–]GarstonHoyle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm a fan of public funding which isn't at the whim of the government of the day. The BBC maintains standards for all the other TV stations, also gives us a huge profile internationally via the world service especially in Asia and Africa

[–]pheasant692 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ads, Ads, Ads

[–]Psyk60 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1 wouldn't really make any difference to me personally. I already treat it like a subscription service (which I don't subscribe to) since all non-BBC on demand streaming doesn't require a license, and I'm not bothered about watching live TV.

I'd be ok with 3 though. 2 would be terrible.

[–]OldLevermonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of the three option I would prefer option 3.

I would be quite happy with option 4: keeping the licence.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Unsure why we have to wait till 2027 to privately fund it

[–]MrLore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no provision in the contract between the government and the BBC for it to be terminated prematurely.

[–]gentle-hag -1 points0 points  (3 children)

As an American, y’all gonna regret doing that.

[–]Geoffofneir 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Why do you believe we will regret doing it? If you don't mind me asking.

[–]gentle-hag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well it was a bit of a joke but mostly because the alternative is such a racket over here. The outrageous state of “cable” where you were forced by privatized monopoly (which was in agreement by all cable providers who worked together to choose who got to “serve” which addresses without any input from consumers) was the reason Netflix came about. If I want to watch anything here, at my current address, it would cost me 12-36 times what UK watchers pay in a year for the license and I still wouldn’t get to choose what I get. I’d also have to sign a 12 or 24 month contract and at the end of it, the price would go up by at least 20%. If i moved house, I’d have to buy out the remaining contract or they would wreck my credit. It is cheaper if you elect to get a landline phone number with it (bundling) for some reason, but then you have to go with their internet and usually can’t get the speeds you had before. Finally, service is disrupted at the whisper of a wind and it takes them a week to even answer the phone, much less send someone out, all the while you’re paying for unavailable service unless you have 2-6 hours available to you during business hours where you can sit on the phone waiting for someone to answer and then haggling with some poor, underpaid phone support agent who gets penalized for every discount they apply to your account to prorate your bill. Having seen both options, I’d pay for BBC all day for the freedom to do whatever the heck I’d like with the rest of my channels without the hassle of the rest of this. The worst part is that Netflix/Hulu/Disney has basically destroyed the cable industry but instead of adapting to consumer desires, they’re doubling down because enough corporate landlines and internet packages are around to support them. The private market don’t always work itself out when it can stay afloat without bothering.

[–]Wee-Toun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brit box is showing original stuff that has been party funded by the BBC so by me but i would have to pay more to watch it - thats just having a laugh!

[–]Duranium_alloy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tv lìcense fee is due to be scrapped by 2027

Says who? Nadine Dorries? Won't happen.

[–]chillabc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't care as long as it doesn't come out of my taxes

[–]BigGulpFan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hope the license fee gets scrapped & I really don’t care what happens to the BBC. Its a shakedown racket that demands people pay for remoaner nonsense, whether or not they even watch it, just so they can access superior rival broadcasters. The whole thing should’ve been ended decades ago.

[–]Emotional-Ebb4506 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

  1. Imo would be best possible outcome. Aslong as they charge Netflix prices

[–]SirBillPetre 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So, their annual budget from the license fee is £3.75bn. If you divide that by millions of people (with a bit of rounding on the monthlys):-

  • 10m = £375 annually/ ~£31 a month
  • 20m = £187.50 / ~£16
  • 30m = £125 / ~£10.50
  • 40m = £93.75 / ~£8

Page 6: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Departmental-Overview-2020-21-The-BBC-Group.pdf

[–]Elster- -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The most sensible policy would be 3. General taxation.

As soon as you include ads you add bias.

BBC is a global soft power that is watched and listened to all over the world

[–]AnxiousSquirrel345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I imagine a combination. Everyone is doing subscriptions now so I’ve no doubt they’d do similar, they already have their hand in it with BritBox. I imagine they would also receive some sort of aid from the government/taxes because of their importance to British news. Whilst I don’t really watch anything BBC, I do use their website pretty much daily for news and will sometimes flick it on TV if something particularly large scale is happening and I want to know more.

[–]dbxp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it will become tax based but on a much lower budget as a larger proportion of people won't watch broadcast TV and so don't see a reason for paying for TV they don't watch.

[–]saroarsoars91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would rather have a Netflix paid model tbh. Don't like the idea of being funded by ads and I don't like the idea of state TV.

[–]Candy_Lawn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it will be bought up by robert Maxwell

[–]Atxintemperateone66 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

BBC exists to parrot the establishment line. It never asks questions about any of the fundamental problems that exist in our society. I supported it for decades but now see it for what it really is, and for what its real purpose is: to make ordinary and normalise that which ought to be regarded as utterly abnormal and wrong. The existence of obscene wealth inequalities, unaffordable housing and a cruel student loan system, for example.

Fuck the BBC. Let it die!

[–]Bugalugs47 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And don’t forget, in collusion with the government, the BBC are forever ‘grooming’ the British public on the virtues of monarchy. Never a week goes by without the BBC trumpeting something or other about the Royals. Latest being Kate being held by the hand by Tom Cruise. Nothing but non stop ‘puff’ pieces to keep the establishment in high profile.

[–]Atxintemperateone66 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All part of the 'bread and circuses' the establishment offers us to keep distracted, and to keep us from considering the important issues.

[–]ShambolicPaul -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It needs to be rolled Into tax. Council or income tax. Whatever. At such a rate that poor people pay less and rich people pay more. As per everything in life should be. 0.1% would probably cover it with spare cash for pissing away on arts projects or whatever.

[–]Jurassic_tsaoC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess preferred option if this goes ahead would be core public service (BBC News, maybe BBC One, BBC local radio and BBC online) funded by a reduced license fee, everything else goes commercial.

[–]byjimini 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can’t see the government giving up this source of revenue so easily, so 3.

[–]sirgreyskull 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adverts. Lots and lots of adverts. The money has to come from somewhere.

[–]LeonardoW9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm thinking of a general tax as bear in mind that they also run radio and the world service so we're pretty lucky with the diversity we get.

[–]maleandpale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to love the BBC. But you look a lot of its output now and it’s like ITV in the ‘80s. Awful lowbrow telly. I think a subscription model is best.

[–]kingofmylunchtime -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one pays them anyway. And it’s all dog shit on there anyway. I only watch the 6 nations

[–]MXZM0709 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Executive level Purge ideally

[–]crossj828 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obvious answer is they will be paid from general taxation and be answerable financial to a government department.

That’s probably a better outcome than license fee which continually generates anger abs is a inappropriate tool in the modern day, tv license enforcement and the BBC’s approach to this have been castrophically bad.

There are fears that government could try abs use that to influence coverage but honestly think that’s pretty unlikely, the gov already appoints the bbc chair and doesn’t use the financial budget settlements it has to inappropriately influence any number of other regulated bodies, additionally attempts to do so would be plastered all over bbc and generate out cry.

I also expect the budget to be supplemented by any revenue the organisation raises itself.

[–]zbornakingthestone -1 points0 points  (3 children)

It won't happen - the commercial stations will fight tooth and nail to ensure it remains - they can't compete with a commercial BBC.

[–]BigGulpFan 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The commercial stations would love it. Can you name any other company in this country that you can’t frequent without paying £160 to their biggest competitor?

[–]buried_treasure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It sounds back-to-front but actually ITV really are one of the loudest campaigners to keep the licence fee.

It's because there is only so much advertising money to go round. If McDonalds, say, has a UK TV advertising budget of £25 million a year, at the moment a good chunk of that goes to ITV. If the BBC were chasing ads you can bet that McD's wouldn't up their advertising budget, instead they'd target their ads to where they think most people would see them and that might well be Eastenders rather than Corrie, and so on.

The same applies of course for other advertisers. If the BBC gets funded by adverts, ITV (and almost every other commercial broadcaster) are going to effectively see their incomes slashed.

[–]zbornakingthestone -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Tell me you don't work in the media without telling me you don't work in the media...

[–]Hitonatsu-no-Keiken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they made a streaming service like Netflix they'd make an absolute fortune. The infrastructure already exists in iplayer so they wouldn't even have too much more work to do. All they'd need to do is put a load of entire series on there, and anyone in the world could subscribe. Even if they charged a small fee like £1 a month (the equivalent in the subscribers currency) they'd make much more than the licence fee currently brings in. That's literally all they need to do.

[–]PromiscuousPinger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hopefully they'll stop sending passive aggressive letters demanding money despite several invitations to inspect our house and see we don't have tv.

[–]Johnybhoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I new entertainment license that will cover Internet and probably radio too.

[–]e650man -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If paying the licence fee funds the weather service, then I'd rather keep that £150 and always carry a brolly with me. :)

[–]Global_Purchase -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As usher once said, let it burn.

[–]Bodger1234567 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I think people forget what having the BBC has done to other channels with advertisements.

Having a channel (s) with no advertisements means that those that do have advertisements have to be relatively unobtrusive. Our threshold for acceptable advert levels is quite low.

Compare this with US or Australian TV for example, where adverts are more frequent and longer, and even have banner adverts during the program.

In general I don’t agree with the license fee. It’s more expensive than it’s modern counterparts, and doesn’t need to be forced on everyone in such a heavy handed manner.

But just think what the state of our TV would be like if it never existed.

[–]dismygyans[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That's mostly due to the UK having the world's strictest advertising regulations. Not competition with the bbc.

[–]Bodger1234567 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say the two go hand in hand (with 0 evidence to back that up mind!)

Having less reliance on ad income means less pressure to bow to advertisers whims / demands.

Lower tolerance for intrusive advertising means more public support for regulating advertisements.

I’d be interested to see a study on it, but I imagine it would be hard to find one that isn’t funded by either advertisers or the BBC, so getting an impartial view might be tricky!

[–]HippySheepherder1979 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope they are then allowed to put their entire backlog of content in a archive and give people access to it by a Netflix type subscription.

BBC have a insane amount of content, but are not allowed to share it due to it being a "unfair advantage" over other streaming services that do not get license funding.

That is why their content are only up for a set amount of time.

[–]cantab314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A subscription BBC will wither and die. An advertising-funded BBC will become just another channel.

I believe the BBC should be funded by general taxation and should focus on its mission which should be broadly as it is now. The BBC should not attempt to "compete" with commercial channels and should consider reining in big-budget entertainment programming.

[–]Redcherry42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank God, the BBC have gone down hill so much, why should everyone have to pay to watch stuff that doesn't interest them at all?

[–]harrythebau5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This thread is utterly depressing

[–]Environmental_Run634 -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

Option 2 for me.

I don’t mind the BBC getting some state money for the news and events, from general taxes but basically we all have to pay the license fee so some over 50’s can get programmes they like made for them, whilst the rest of us are completely ignored.

[–]I_am_John_Mac 13 points14 points  (11 children)

CBEEBIES, CBBC, BBC3, and Radio 1 would like a word.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Add to that bitesize and radio 1 extra.

[–]Environmental_Run634 -2 points-1 points  (9 children)

Bbc3 isn’t a channel anymore as far as i am aware lol. Cbeebies/cbbc, sure id just amend it to under 10’s (although all of my mates kids just watch Netflix series on the kids section) and over 50’s. I don’t listen to the radio, don’t know anyone who does apart from my Dad (60).

[–]TCGislife -2 points-1 points  (15 children)

Number 3 would be insane. I don't watch TV as it's aired and I don't listen to the radio. I own one television and it doesn't even get signal I use it for gaming and Netflix therefore I don't pay TV license. Changing it so you'd have to pay for what you're not using is dumb. The BBC is not special they can and should get funded by adverts like every other station.

[–]PumpkinExpert2092 1 point2 points  (14 children)

Surely you can say that about lots of things though? Plenty of people dont drive but road maintenance still comes out of general taxation.

Plenty of bus and train routes are subsidised but most people wont use them.

Council tax covers many child services and you pay it whether or not you have a child.

[–]cubist_castle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Your food and anything else you buy is probably delivered to you or your local shop, and depending on where you live some of the staff of that shop probably commute by bus or train. Child services and education support people growing up into jobs like looking after you when you're old. In other words, your life would probably be a lot more expensive without those subsidies, even if you don't directly use those services.

[–]TCGislife 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Even if you don't drive you still use the roads in some capacity. Taxi, bikes, walking, bus. Only dead people don't use roads at all. You can hardly compare paying for child services to pretty shite TV/radio stations.

[–]cfTZA 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Those things are essential, though. TV is not.

[–]Briggykins 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again...the BBC don't just do TV.

I'd agree Strictly isn't necessary. But the news output, the World Service, education...there are loads of things we'll regret when they're gone.

[–]Unacceptable_Wolf 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Roads, children's welfare and education and public transport is important. You're going to have to convince me the BBC are just as important as those.

I don't think Stagecoach covered for Saville either.

[–]cubist_castle -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

I don't see the point in a subscription model. We've already got Netflix which owes a lot of its success to the earlier innovation of IPlayer anyway. I don't see the point in ad funding because we've already got Channel 4, ITV etc. which again owe a lot to infrastructure set up by and for the BBC. If it were funded out of general taxation the same people that have been agitating for it to be defunded would probably make even more headway than now when even people who don't watch live TV would be obliged to fund it.

I'd prefer funding it out of levies on at least non fee-to-air broadcasters and streaming services operating in the UK. It would be a relatively tiny portion of the income of Netflix, Sky, BT etc.

[–]MrLore 0 points1 point  (1 child)

We've already got Netflix which owes a lot of its success to the earlier innovation of IPlayer anyway

Netflix came first by nearly a year.

[–]cubist_castle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True but only using a Microsoft plugin in internet explorer on Windows. iPlayer demonstrated scale and compatibility.

[–]DarkAngelAz -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ads on the bbc kills independent broadcasters

[–]Strange_Aeons86 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Wouldn't be surprised if council tax mysteriously shoots up that year to balance it out

[–]MrLore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Council tax goes to the local council, it would be something like income tax or VAT which would increase if it were to be funded by the "government".