Tv licence has "10 years left"

[bigsexydoug]

I don't think it's a valid option for the BBC to be a subscription service.

 

As a public service broadcaster the point isn't to make it a level playing field.

 

I wouldn't pay for Virgin TV either.

 

I never said I wanted to send people to jail. In fact my preferred option removes that totally.

 

Any poll on Sheffield forum for things like this is worthless because of the issue with users having multiple aliases.

 

I think you're getting a bit too worked up.

 

Chill out.

 

Give us a reason then what the BBC is so good at that no one else can do that we should pay roughly 4 billion per year for through taxation ?

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 10:26 ----------

 

The BBC is a public good, unlike Sky, Netflix etc. which are private companies. The appropriate/only way to pay for a public good is collectively, through a licence fee or taxation or something. Making it into a subscription service would turn it into a private rather than public good. Many babies would get thrown out with the bathwater. As L00b and Joni Mitchell say, you won't know what you've got till it's gone.

 

I agree with those posters who are saying that it's probably time for the BBC to be paid for out of general taxation, rather than the licence fee. Would be cheaper to collect, for one thing. What you see as a "fair" tax will depend on how much money you've got. The licence fee is effectively a regressive tax, which will be seen as "fair" by better off people (apart from Taxpayers' Alliance types who think that all taxation is "unfair") and "unfair" by the less well off (and by people in general who are concerned about social justice).

 

I would miss paying £145 for something I dont use at all ?

 

Why would it be gone ? People would be desperate to subscribe surely ?

[Happ Hazzard]

I don't think the BBC does the public any good.

[Mister M]

You don't think it's disgraceful that the entire public are forced to pay for a ultra-biased news service that doesn't represent the political views of everyone who pays for it? I don't think that's fair. Yes, I think it's disgraceful that an entire country are forced to pay for an ultra-left propaganda machine.

 

It isn't ultra left. That's the criticism usually coming from ultra right wing zealots, who hope that by constantly repeating the same mantra, the public will believe them and the BBC will move even further on their agenda. Tactics used in America.

I wonder what you think makes the BBC's output ultra left?

[Mister M]

I don't think the BBC does the public any good.

 

You make it sound like a fizzy soft deink loaded with sugar

 

The BBC certainly isn't perfect, but it's reputation throughout the world in terms of programmes and integrity (excluding the Jimmy Savile fiasco) is envied. I doubt whether Sky would have the same kudos or respect....Perhaps that's why the Murdoch press are calling for its abolition - sheer envy.

[bigsexydoug]

Another advantage of paying for it out of general taxation would be that you wouldn't notice the £145 so much. We all pay lots of taxes that get spent on things we don't use or even like, that's part of the price of living in a civilised society/democracy.

 

As explained, the BBC would be gone as a public good if it was turned into a subscription service.

 

I dont think it's been explained even slightly, Ive asked numerous times for several posters to explain what the BBC does that can't be replaced, I've yet to get any answer at all !

 

Feel free to quote the post that explains what service the BBC provides that one of the other 400 channels aren't providing.

 

The difference is though regarding taxation, is that other services aren't vast numbers of life changing options they are niche services !, where the BBC has hundreds of other channels that provide very very similar services and do so without 4 billion off the taxpayer!

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 13:09 ----------

 

You make it sound like a fizzy soft deink loaded with sugar

 

The BBC certainly isn't perfect, but it's reputation throughout the world in terms of programmes and integrity (excluding the Jimmy Savile fiasco) is envied. I doubt whether Sky would have the same kudos or respect....Perhaps that's why the Murdoch press are calling for its abolition - sheer envy.

 

So meet them head on 1 v 1 If your right, the masses will flock to subscribe and nothing changes ! Why are you afraid of that ?

[L00b]

I dont think it's been explained even slightly, Ive asked numerous times for several posters to explain what the BBC does that can't be replaced, I've yet to get any answer at all !

Provide a public service.

Feel free to quote the post that explains what service the BBC provides that one of the other 400 channels aren't providing.

I would, several of them as well, if I wasn't certain that the difference between a (mandatory) public service and an (optional) private service is going to go straight over your head, genuinely or in bad faith.

 

When you accept that there is a fundamental requirement for a public broadcaster in the UK, and that by definition it must -as a public service- be funded by the taxpayer, then we can start talking about what the BBC does that is just extra and unnecessary stuff that could be done away with, and what cannot be done away with (and would always require taxpayer funding no matter what).

 

Such as the Free To Air broadcast infrastructure (used by all TV and radios, public or commercial). For instance.

Funding

 

Although commonly described as free, the cost of free-to-air services is met through various means:

 

Tax payer funding

* with an enforced levy of a licence fee for transmission and production costs (e.g., the BBC) or

* with a voluntary donation for local transmission and production costs (e.g., PBS)

* with commercial advertising for transmission and production costs and surplus revenues returned to the government (e.g., CBC Television/Télévision de Radio-Canada in Canada, ABC/SBS in Australia and TVNZ in New Zealand)

 

Commercial sponsorship

Consumer products and services where part of the cost goes toward television advertising and sponsorship (in the case of Japanese television broadcasters like TV Asahi and TV Tokyo which relies on sponsorship heavily, similar to Philippine Television like ABS-CBN, TV5 and GMA)

Edited June 23, 2015 by L00b

[bigsexydoug]

Provide a public service.

I would, several of them as well, if I wasn't certain that the difference between a (mandatory) public service and an (optional) private service is going to go straight over your head, genuinely or in bad faith.

 

When you accept that there is a fundamental requirement for a public broadcaster in the UK, and that by definition it must -as a public service- be funded by the taxpayer, then we can start talking about what the BBC does that is just extra and unnecessary stuff that could be done away with, and what cannot be done away with (and would always require taxpayer funding no matter what).

 

Such as the Free To Air broadcast infrastructure (used by all TV and radios, public or commercial). For instance.

 

All your saying is it's a public service, so we must have a public service or we won t have a public service.

What public service is the BBC providing that isn't be provided elsewhere, I will give you a small amount of crumbs yes their is a small need for maintaining equipment, but yet again That should also be provided by those who want that service, if the BBC wants to develop its online content to rival Netflix then you and whoever subscribes to it should pay, it's for your benefit .

 

I can't accept that there is a fundamental requirement for a public service broadcaster because you and ot others can't or won't say what the BBC is providing that other channels aren't providing !

 

regarding the freeview etc infrastructure that would have happened anyway with or without the BBC, as a lot of that bandwidth was needed anyway for freebies and was second hand from the phone companies after the auctions to provide higher speed mobile data, people already had the 5 main Channels, but because it went digital they then needed to spend money to make people receive the 5 main channels plus a few more ?

Edited June 23, 2015 by bigsexydoug

[Obelix]

There's no question to answer because a public service broadcaster would never be morphed into a Sky-style pay TV service. Think about it for less than a second and you'd know that's true.

 

Actually what I'm suggesting is we lose the licence fee and use a tiny amount of taxation revenue to fund a streamlined version of the BBC. It would be cheaper and the tax would be progressive. Same sort of model as Channel 4.

 

Forget about the subscription service idea. It's daft.

 

Forcing me to pay tax for something I don't use is not progressive.

[L00b]

All your saying is it's a public service, so we must have a public service or we won t have a public service.

 

What public service is the BBC providing that isn't be provided elsewhere, I will give you a small amount of crumbs yes their is a small need for maintaining equipment, but yet again That should also be provided by those who want that service, if the BBC wants to develop its online content to rival Netflix then you and whoever subscribes to it should pay, it's for your benefit.

 

I can't accept that there is a fundamental requirement for a public service broadcaster because you and ot others can't or won't say what the BBC is providing that other channels aren't providing !

Erm...

I would, several of them as well, if I wasn't certain that the difference between a (mandatory) public service and an (optional) private service is going to go straight over your head, genuinely or in bad faith.

QED.

 

You manifestly don't understand what a public broadcasting service is to begin with (hint: it's not just the RF hardware), and I'm sorry but that makes for just far too much educating to do (based on your circular false logic in the above) before we have any chance of a meaningful discussion here.

[bigsexydoug]

Erm...

QED.

 

You manifestly don't understand what a public broadcasting service is to begin with (hint: it's not just the RF hardware), and I'm sorry but that makes for just far too much educating to do (based on your circular false logic in the above) before we have any chance of a meaningful discussion here.

 

Your right, you can't explain what it does that needs to be saved, if you can't explain that then I can't see any reason for a licence fee never mind General taxation paying for it to be saved.

 

So let's scrap it !