andygardener Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hmm, now let me think. How many people would choose to not pay given the choice and still watch via illegal download or some other means? A lot I'll wager. Clearly things like iplayer would have to be available to subscribers only. As for illegal downloads I don't know what Skys loss rate of subscribers is to people who scrabble about the murkier parts of the net to steal the content but I don't imagine it's that huge. Everything I have seen in relation to pirate sites is that enforcement and consequences are getting more and more severe so those not put off by the threat of fines or even jail are highly likely to be among the 5% who currently don't pay for the licence anyway. I'm not proposing privatising the BBC so if illegal downloads were regarded as such an issue as to decimate the subcriber base then they can always make illegally downloading BBC material a more serious offence, bang up a couple of dozen illegal downloaders in the first week of subscription for 6 months and you'd probably find the issue went away very quickly. See point above, out of interest, how do you think your system would work if it were applied to other public services? A hospital is a public service. A school is a public service. Strictly is not a public service. Eastenders is not a public service. Endless shows about people buying a house, or renovating a house or selling the contents of the attic of a house are not a public service. It's entertainment. To some. Plus those that say they never watch, but do anyway, and those that download programs to avoid the license fee. No, that's not the case. That is the case currently. Make it subscription and those who currently don't pay but do watch either have to buy a subscription or put up with not being able to watch any BBC content. Exactly what is the issue here, that everyone pays the same, or that they can't opt out if they have a TV? If everyone who could afford to decided to pay for private healthcare and were allowed to opt out of paying for the NHS, do you think it would survive? (in it's current form, or at all) If subscription TV is so great and such a savior, why is Sky more expensive across the board, yet has a lower quality of program and adverts? The issue is that there is a wide market in TV entertainment which those who have no interest in the BBC or cannot afford to pay for the BBC cannot legally access. £150 a year isn't a huge amount of money for most people. But if someone is struggling to pay the bills why should they not have the option to be able to watch the free to air advertising supported channels and not the BBC? If someone has no interest in watching any BBC output and just wants Sky, why should they pay for the BBC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 A hospital is a public service. A school is a public service. Strictly is not a public service. Eastenders is not a public service. Endless shows about people buying a house, or renovating a house or selling the contents of the attic of a house are not a public service. It's entertainment. To some. The BBC is a public service organisation, no matter how you dress it up to avoid answering a simple question. No, that's not the case. That is the case currently. It's not the case, but it is the case? Make it subscription and those who currently don't pay but do watch either have to buy a subscription or put up with not being able to watch any BBC content. Yet all those channels/services that are subscription only, can and are ripped off everyday? If someone has no interest in watching any BBC output and just wants Sky, why should they pay for the BBC? Anyone who would choose Sky over the BBC is clearly too daft to know what's good for 'em But.. to turn your question around:- If someone who has no interest in using the NHS and just wants their own private care, why should they pay for the NHS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The BBC is a public service organisation, no matter how you dress it up to avoid answering a simple question. It's not the case, but it is the case? Yet all those channels/services that are subscription only, can and are ripped off everyday? Strangely most of these channels don't go out of business though. And any that do were not producing content people wanted to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The BBC is a public service organisation, no matter how you dress it up to avoid answering a simple question. It's not the case, but it is the case? Yet all those channels/services that are subscription only, can and are ripped off everyday? If someone who has no interest in using the NHS and just wants their own private care, why should they pay for the NHS? How long do you think the NHS would last? A health service is an essential service, a television broadcaster is a non-essential luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Strangely most of these channels don't go out of business though. And any that do were not producing content people wanted to watch. An extremely narrow band of content that appeals to the highest common denominator + adverts. Also, to get the good stuff (from say, HBO for example), then you also have to sign up for a load of crap as well, and it still costs more than the BBC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 A health service is an essential service, a television broadcaster is a non-essential luxury. They're both setup on the principle of public service, and thus can be compared. Do you think the NHS would survive if only those that wanted to use it, payed for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDINNERS Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 still think it stinks that if I dont want to watch or listen to anything currently made by the BBC, I still have to pay for it. I should be able to decide what service I want to pay for rather than have this cost forced upon me. Also dont agree that BBC programmes are better quality,how do people come to this conclusion:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 They're both setup on the principle of public service, and thus can be compared. Do you think the NHS would survive if only those that wanted to use it, payed for it? No idea and its not especially relevant whether the BBC would last without the licence fee. If they can't convince people to buy their service, it's not right to effectively compel people to pay for it given it hardly comes under the essentials in life. They should take their chances like other broadcasters have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I like the BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Absolutely not. The recent mistakes have been terrible, but are no worse that the tabloid papers churn out every single day. Where else can you hear anything like Radio 4? Or Radio 3? Or BBC4? Lets hope this current mess is sorted quickly, and the idiotic Murdoch and Daily Mail fans can get back to their mindless privacy invasion, racism and mysogyny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.