If the TV licence was optional would you pay it?

Zilnad wrote:I don't pay it now, so no.

this.

Lagamorph wrote:That's more expensive than Netflix which offers a significantly wider variety of content.

I don’t think it's true that Netflix offer a wider variety of content. The BBC offers (on top of BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4):

•BBC News channel, BBC Parliament as well as national and local news broadcasts
•Eight (maybe more) national radio stations
•Local radio stations
•Weather
•News, sport, weather apps
•The ad-free and vast BBC website
•High quality drama
•Natural history programming (e.g Planet Earth and Blue Planet)
•Popular comedy shows
•iPlayer (which includes on-demand and live broadcasts of their shows plus a selection of movies)
•Podcasts
•Children's programming (with their own channels)
•Live FA Cup
•MOTD
•Live Six Nations
•Live World Cup
•Live European Championships
•Live Summer and Winter Olympics
•Live Wimbledon & Queens
•Live World Snooker

You might not like or rate some of that stuff, but you cannot criticise the variety on offer. It’s certainly more varied than any of the streaming services.

Preezy wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:They haven’t had a strong unbiased news position for the best part of a decade now, at least.

I always thought the BBC (on their website, at least) was continually being criticised by The Right for being too left? "Another pro-climate change/pro-EU/pro-diversity article etc - wasn't that a thing?

Or am I thinking of something else?

It doesn’t have anything to do with right and left wing, it has to do with them having posted verifiably false stories on their website on a variety of subjects. Particularly during the Scottish Independence debate in 2013/14 - the BBC’s utterly partisan commentary was partially responsible for me voting Scotland to leave the U.K.

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:They haven’t had a strong unbiased news position for the best part of a decade now, at least.

I always thought the BBC (on their website, at least) was continually being criticised by The Right for being too left? "Another pro-climate change/pro-EU/pro-diversity article etc - wasn't that a thing?

Or am I thinking of something else?

It doesn’t have anything to do with right and left wing, it has to do with them having posted verifiably false stories on their website on a variety of subjects. Particularly during the Scottish Independence debate in 2013/14 - the BBC’s utterly partisan commentary was partially responsible for me voting Scotland to leave the U.K.

Oh I see, I wasn't aware of that. Alrighty then.

Mafro wrote:

Zilnad wrote:I don't pay it now, so no.

this.

That. Do not miss it a single bit.

It's mainly just Doctor Who for me on BBC these days, so probably not. Most of the stuff I watch now is on Netflix and Amazon.

The Unbelievable Truth justifies the licence fee. Everything else is a bonus.

Moggy wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:That's more expensive than Netflix which offers a significantly wider variety of content.

I don’t think it's true that Netflix offer a wider variety of content. The BBC offers (on top of BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4):

•BBC News channel, BBC Parliament as well as national and local news broadcasts
•Eight (maybe more) national radio stations
•Local radio stations
•Weather
•News, sport, weather apps
•The ad-free and vast BBC website
•High quality drama
•Natural history programming (e.g Planet Earth and Blue Planet)
•Popular comedy shows
•iPlayer (which includes on-demand and live broadcasts of their shows plus a selection of movies)
•Podcasts
•Children's programming (with their own channels)
•Live FA Cup
•MOTD
•Live Six Nations
•Live World Cup
•Live European Championships
•Live Summer and Winter Olympics
•Live Wimbledon & Queens
•Live World Snooker

You might not like or rate some of that stuff, but you cannot criticise the variety on offer. It’s certainly more varied than any of the streaming services.

This. I don't really like the way the BBC news has gone recently but I'll always argue it needs our support to improve rather then killing it. The iPlayer is only getting stronger now that shows are able to stay available for much longer. In the last couple of weeks or so I've watched Killing Eve, Dracula in UHD and the whole of Porridge. What about the science and arts output? There is currently an entire series of shows based around nudes in art going on. Would Netflix make this?

It's also vital for the industry here. So many that might work for Netflix shows etc. Gain experience and opportunities via the BBC, not just writers and directors but set designers and technicians. Put it this way. Would most of us know Brian Cox if not for Wonders of the Solar System? That only happened after he spent years doing smaller radio and tv gigs for the BBC. We are so lucky to have this, despite its flaws.

I love the BBC but if there was no rule/law stipulating the licence fee had to be paid I'd consider myself a bit daft to stump up the cash...

I'll happily continue to pay for it while it exists as it does! I'd be devastated to lose its output.

Pretty much the only BBC output I watch/listen these days that doesn't wind up on Netflix or elsewhere anywhere is the radio, which should remain free so that everyone can get news without having to pay for it. That said, I would happily pay the TV license if I didn't have a stringent income and I listen to BBC news bulletins and check the website along with the guardian. This could be helped by having a lower fee licensing tier for example the main two channels (plus BBC Parliament and other government things plus News 24) or a rebate if you are on below a certain income, which is surprisingly absent.

Of course I would, gonna fund Eastenders somehow.

I only ever watch BBC for Doctor Who, I'd rather they scrap the fee and have ads because surely they'd get more money from ads than the license.

imbusydoctorwho wrote:Of course I would, gonna fund Eastenders somehow.

I only ever watch BBC for Doctor Who, I'd rather they scrap the fee and have ads because surely they'd get more money from ads than the license.

Doctor Who with advert breaks and product placement.

I'd prefer to pay the licence fee than have adverts. I like watching stuff on the BBC channels because they don't have the ad-infested style of the commercial channels; I just can't watch programmes live on those.

TWA made good points. The BBC certainly isn't perfect but, for the breadth of service and general quality provided, I feel it's leagues ahead of other media channels. It produces a number of TV, radio and internet programmes that would never be commercially viable but are a source of information and awarenes for areas of society that have more niche needs and interests*.

* Snog, Marry, Avoid etc .

It's 12 years old (and a long read!) but I still think Stephen Fry's essay/speech regarding the BBC and funding is a good read: The Future of Public Service Broadcasting - Some Thoughts

The end sums up most of my feelings on the subject:

You know when you visit another country and you see that it spends more money on flowers for its roundabouts than we do, and you think … coo, why don’t we do that? How pretty. How pleasing. What a difference it makes. To spend money for the public good in a way that enriches, gives pleasure, improves the quality of life, that is something. That is a real achievement. It’s only flowers in a roundabout, but how wonderful. Well, we have the equivalent of flowers in the roundabout times a million: the BBC enriches the country in ways we will only discover when it has gone and it is too late to build it up again. We actually can afford the BBC, because we can’t afford not to.

I don't believe there is a service that we could fund to the same sum that could achieve as much wide spread benefit as the BBC currently does.

No, I wouldn't as I very rarely watch any BBC content and never listen to the radio.

I barely watch the BBC, if anything I only use the iplayer for 2 shows when they're on and that's it, and I can probably watch them somewhere else if need be on a later date.

If I didnt have to pay for it I definitely wouldn't.

imbusydoctorwho wrote:Of course I would, gonna fund Eastenders somehow.

I only ever watch BBC for Doctor Who, I'd rather they scrap the fee and have ads because surely they'd get more money from ads than the license.

I find this idea rather daft as live tv ratings are falling across the board. Also what do you think would happen to the show if it had to please a multitude of companies that wanted to put ads in it? Do you think a toy company would like to have an advert placed inside a story about plastic waste pollution?

Buying your mother a birthday present is optional.

Years ago yes, now the only thing I watch on BBC is Inside No 9.

I used to like the News it was impartial but recent coverage has shown otherwise.

Also The One Show is the worst thing ever filmed.

Godzilla wrote:Also The One Show is the worst thing ever filmed.

Seconded. Absolute guff.