Lurch666 wrote:

One question.
Do you think I should pay for a TV license even though I don't watch the BBC?
Since it appears to be such a great institution should I pay for it's upkeep even thought I will never watch it?

It also pays for the Freeview infrastructure which allows other live TV to be shown.

Third place playoff in Only Connect tonight btw, license fee already paid for itself.

Things I agree with so far on the "other side" of the BBC discussion divide:

- The concept of a license fee for TV is outdated. Converting to a 'line item' tax seems OK in principle but is fraught with danger in practice: it would take no time for an act of parliament to wrap it up into general taxation, and it would get treated like any other ministry, department, or centrally-funded institution; ie: get cut funds in no time. Enshrined in law has no meaning whatsoever: no law dreamed up by Parliament can constrain a future Parliament from changing it or removing it. this would almost certainly lead to the slow death of the BBC as a national broadcaster

- A progressive fee to pay for it gets my vote: £155 or whatever means almost nothing to me but a damn lot to others, and I would be happy to pay more to compensate

- Exporing different options for funding isn't necessarily the end of the current principles of the BBC. If there was a suitable technical solution, a set of packages (BBC sounds = this much, BBC TV/iPlayer = that much, Whole BBC = so much more etc) could possibly work, the larger services subsidising the smaller, regional, niche services. Would require careful management but plausible?

Examining the value the BBC adds to the UK is a difficult thing to do. Certainly much more so than "I don't watch it, so why should I pay, and if so many do want to watch it, then it should be fine". Putting aside the general principle that people are cunts when it comes to public services and paying the tax required to make them viable, useful, and actually good, a short list culled just from this thread:

- Infrastructure: you wouldn't have DBV-T or DBV-S without the BBC's investment. The law said that the BBC could not turn off analogue services until a suitably high percentage of the population could receive reliable digital services. DVB-T doesn't reach a shit ton of places. So the BBC led the development of DVB-S and the Freesat consortium, ensuring people could still get telly in Shithole-in-the-ground, Norfolk.

- Innovation: the money poured into R&D can often be wasted, but look at what did come out of it: in its early days, the BBC News website was the best in the world, for years. iPlayer and catch up. Nicam stereo. Terrestrial HD services. Back in the day: colour. Would this all have come about in a market economy? Maybe. but you'd have paid a premium for it, it would have taken longer (more corporate = less risk), and would be less universal.

- Content, culture: don't want to go over this again in terms of breadth and depth (yes I know you don't watch BBC1 any more...) but the most important takeaway is: there are people who rely on the BBC and there are people who enjoy and are inspired by parts of the BBC service. Do not underestimate the value (not exclusively monetary!) this can create in a nation

- Economic contribution: Pop touches on the scale of the thing: 22k employees in all media fields is a lot, and necessarily leads to value throughout the industry. But think also on the apprenticeships, the hiring outreach programmes, the opportunities offered by a corporation forced to expand regionally (regulation can be good!)

It's not "just" about a content service that needs to / should compete with the likes of Netflix. It's a much bigger thing, with wide and subtle and obvious impacts all over society. It's basically unique, but also very very far from perfect or even anywhere near as good as it should be.

It's still run by white middle aged blobs and career chickens. It's a multi-fiefdom set-up with lots of pointless arguing over territory and prestige. The dramas are far too twee after all this time. It needs proper reform, and it probably needs a good luck at funding methodology. But it sure as fuck needs out protection. I've seen what TV looks like overseas, it is a grim thing, and we sure as shit don't need more Netflix-style algorithm programming

If you don't watch live TV or iPlayer why are you paying the license fee?

Saw a stay the other day that BBC played 20k individual songs across its stations last year. Commercial radio played 5k

Yossarian wrote:

One question. Do you think I should pay for a TV license even though I don't watch the BBC? Since it appears to be such a great institution should I pay for it's upkeep even thought I will never watch it?

It also pays for the Freeview infrastructure which allows other live TV to be shown.

Freeview transmission is rapidly becoming completely obsolete and irrelevant due to internet streaming.


I do like the idea of publicly funded media for reasons others have mentioned, I'm just not entirely convinced by the BBC's output thus far, though I haven't really watched any in the last 5+ years. IMO only a small proportion of its output recently (last 10-15 years I guess) has been of real lasting cultural value. I've got some misgivings about their news output too. It is a bit of a catch 22 if there needs to be a greater budget to really make it better.

I do think we need public funding for the arts in general, but perhaps the BBC isn't going to be the optimal way of doing this. Certainly media is going to become increasingly decentralised and individual, i.e. Youtube and other platforms, and I think that approach has a lot of benefits and is probably worth supporting. Big shows/films/documentaries need more infrastructure of course so it would be good if something like what the BBC offers continues to exist. I really have no idea tbh.

Anyway, Johnson is a twat.

Honest Tory Manifesto:
1) Sell NHS
2) Destroy BBC
3) Blame Immigrants

GurtTractor wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

One question. Do you think I should pay for a TV license even though I don't watch the BBC? Since it appears to be such a great institution should I pay for it's upkeep even thought I will never watch it?

It also pays for the Freeview infrastructure which allows other live TV to be shown.

Freeview transmission is rapidly becoming completely obsolete and irrelevant due to internet streaming.

I'm not sure how rapid you think this is, but I strongly suspect the reality is nowhere near as rapid as you are thinking.

Whilst the iPlayer is generally excellent, commercial channels offerings not so. Try watching the ITV Hub on a smart TV. There's a strong chance you won't be able to watch live.

poprock wrote:

The Beeb does a million things apart from just make TV shows. For one thing it provides routes into the creative industries for tens of thousands of people. The BBC is a massive talent incubator, which contributes incalculable amounts to the UK economy in the long term. Talk to anybody in the film, TV or radio industries in the UK and I’ll bet more than 90% got their start at the BBC.

This. BBC grows talent. The benefits of which are difficult to calculate.

Where BBC has really disappointed me has been its race to the bottom to try and maximise audiences. There has been some dumbing down in its documentary output too.

I've always seen BBC has a means to spark interest in kids. To turn them onto subjects. Not just feed into the social media frenzy. BBC has been really good at the genuine eccentric or unusual presenter whose enthusiasm burns on screen.

Moore and now Aderin-Pocock on Sky at Night is one obvious example but then there is Sister Wendy for Art, Mary Beard for History. We still have Attenborough but the enthusiasm of Chris Packham for Natural History is infectous. Julia Bradbury quietly (and charmingly) enthuses on hill walking. Bob Harris and The Old Grey Whistle Test (admittedly an oldie but why isn't something like that back on the screen?)

On Radio we have/had Wogan, Walker, Bruce, Peel et al. 

Quirky things like the Shipping Forecast and its gorgeous soporific intro, or "church bells of the week - a 30sec slot late on a Sunday night". Disposable to many but they make the service what it is.

The BBC does this sort of thing really well.

davyK wrote:

poprock wrote:

The Beeb does a million things apart from just make TV shows. For one thing it provides routes into the creative industries for tens of thousands of people. The BBC is a massive talent incubator, which contributes incalculable amounts to the UK economy in the long term. Talk to anybody in the film, TV or radio industries in the UK and I’ll bet more than 90% got their start at the BBC.

This. BBC grows talent. The benefits of which are difficult to calculate. Where BBC has really disappointed me has been its race to the bottom to try and maximise audiences. There has been some dumbing down in its documentary output too. I've always seen BBC has a means to spark interest in kids. To turn them onto subjects. Not just feed into the social media frenzy. BBC has been really good at the genuine eccentric or unusual presenter whose enthusiasm burns on screen. Moore and now Aderin-Pocock on Sky at Night is one obvious example but then there is Sister Wendy for Art, Mary Beard for History. We still have Attenborough but the enthusiasm of Chris Packham for Natural History is infectous. Julia Bradbury quietly (and charmingly) enthuses on hill walking. Bob Harris and The Old Grey Whistle Test (admittedly an oldie but why isn't something like that back on the screen?) On Radio we have/had Wogan, Walker, Bruce, Peel et al.  Quirky things like the Shipping Forecast and its gorgeous soporific intro, or "church bells of the week - a 30sec slot late on a Sunday night". Disposable to many but they make the service what it is. The BBC does this sort of thing really well.

I don't know how they're supposed to recapture this now.

As for the output.
The are diamonds in the rough but I find BBC One in particular to be tragic.

Look at tonight's prime time.
One Show
Panorama about dangerous roads and the deaths that happen on them.
Eastenders
Kelvin's Big Farming.
Who do you think you are.

No wonder young people aren't watching.

Who do you think you are is pretty great occasionally.

Wasn't bbc one always the more middle age, Conservative channel with BBC 2 having the more interesting stuff for young minds?

davyK wrote:

Repair Shop. The obsession with the younger market isn't helping. They will be streaming anyhow. We keep hearing the population is getting older. So is it that big a deal to be serving that?

Then the BBC is a zombie and will be dead in a decade or two anyway.
Those people aren't going to get to 40 and suddenly decide to get a TV license.

But some kids do get older