« Topics
Ne1L C1,115 posts since 11 Sep 2011
Yes, because ITV are going to be happy taking all the BBC PSB requirements whilst the commercial lucrative stuff goes to a new rival.

I mean the very basic stuff like sports rights and some political coverage.

Well sports rights aren’t really considered PSB.

But it’s just your fantasy anyway. I know see no real political desire to get rid of the BBC and even though this has turned into a bit of PR disaster for the BBC it’s still not that high up on the agenda even from the Daily Mail. The BBC will either backtrack or the story will just die down and it will be forgotten about in 6 months time.

Getting rid of the BBC would be lead to a national outrage that would make the poll tax riots of 1990 seem like handbags at 20 paces!

The BBC have found themselves in an impossible situation. They are a business and have to make money but at the same time have to cope with the current economic climate. Whichever choice they made they were damned.

CBBC and Cbeebies are probably responsible for keeping a whole generation of parents this side of going potty
BBC 4 is a superb channel
BBC News probably keeps a lot of night workers and insomniacs company

I don't watch BBC 3.
iee_reith gave kudos
Revolution352 posts since 27 Oct 2005
London London
I see Piers Morgan, Susanna Reid "fighting back tears", together with the backing of the BBC-bashing press who report on every twist and turn on Good Morning Britain, are milking this story for every thing it's worth at the moment, whipping hostility against the BBC.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Good Morning Britain leapfrog in front of BBC Breakfast now in the ratings and viewer share, and the BBC's viewing figures collapse generally.

No, because this will die down. People will come back to the BBC because of the alternative.

The blame should lie with the government but it's a masterstroke on their part and the usual suspects have fallen for it -- hook, line and sinker. They were praised when they offered free licence fees so why haven't they been criticised for taking them away?

Of course the BBC shouldn't be exempt of criticism. They have wasted lots of money on ill-fated schemes and poorly planned logistics, and the stars are overpaid. I'd personally like to see the Australian PSB system replicated as there would be a lot of transparency. But I digress.

And I'm not sure why Piers Morgan or indeed anyone at ITV should be celebrating and pushing for the abolition of the licence fee. It would make them more accountable to producing quality programming which is a thing of the past on commercial TV. Where once ITV produced TV that BBC could only dream of (The World at War, World in Action, Survival), it has been decimated thanks to the company mergers, in fighting and squabbles that happened during the 90s and 2000s. No quality thresholds in place.
iee_reith, Lou Scannon and 2 others
  • mat76
  • London Lite
gave kudos
Riaz614 posts since 6 Jan 2016
I’m a bit torn on this debate. On the one hand I feel that the BBC’s existence as a public service broadcaster is nonnegotiable. However, I have to ask if the BBC couldn’t stand to be cut back a bit? It does seem very bloated and tries to do too much. I get the point that they are trying to cater for everyone in the public good, but getting back to basics might not be a bad thing. I would certainly be happy to pay for a smaller but much higher quality BBC.

Exactly. No popular entertainment programmes would mean a vast majority of people not interested in paying the licence fee, so no minority services like Radio 3, Asian Network or BBC Four that arguably make the BBC what it is.

There are two schools of thought on this subject. The first is that the BBC has to produce a sufficient amount of popular entertainment in order to convince the public to pay the TV licence fee in the first place. The second is that popular entertainment should be exiled to channels funded by commercials, subscription, or both because it can succeed in this environment, and only PSB and niche programmes are funded from the TV licence fee - which should be reduced dramatically (under £50?) to compensate for it no longer funding popular entertainment.
james-20015,200 posts since 13 Sep 2015
Central (East) East Midlands Today
I see this has got people ranting again about them sending excessive numbers of people on "paid jollies" to the likes of the Women's world cup and Glastonbury... I just want to slap these people so hard. How many people would they send to cover these events, then, one presenter and a single cameraman?
japitts and iee_reith gave kudos
08tom649 posts since 24 Nov 2007
BBC plays a vital role in the British media entertainment industry. If it was axed it would have a huge impact. The likelihood is the BBC would be sold off and major show like doctor who could be made in America.

ITV will never allow the BBC to be funded by advertisement because there is only so much money in the advertising pot and if the BBC take a huge cut of this it will impact ITV as well as others. If anything ITV would like to buy BBC Studios but that’s to costly.

As much as I like Netflix and Amazon Prime they don’t add a huge amount to the British industry. And without sounding all UKIP I don’t want an American streaming service to be my main source of entertainment. I want a British streaming service to sit along the big boys that supports British content makers. After all we make some of the best content in the world.

Even though BritBox won’t work that well I do think one major British streaming service will work better against the big boys rather than every broadcast having a small streaming service. I wish the BBC would focus more on the future and accept that the licence fee will not last forever. The worst case would be if funding stopped and the BBC go bust. There needs to be transition period. For example instead of have loads of radio stations could they create audio shows on BBC Sounds.

However this is the future and does not solve the issue of the day. If the BBC can’t fund its self then it can axe the free licence fee offer for over 75s. It’s not great but you have to do what you have to do. In my view free licence fee is a benefit not an offer and since the government put it on the BBC it became an offer rather than a benefit. The government knew full well the BBC could never be able to deliver the deal in its current state and the BBC could not fight this as there was anti BBC people in charge. Also the BBC could not go public with it at the time due to the JS scandal. If people want over 75s free licence fee then they need to put the pressure on the government to put back the benefit. I feel for the over 75s but this is the reality. The BBC should never put in this position. In terms of timing it great timing due to the conservative contest. The BBC could really do with labour and other come out and say they would pay the benefit. If they do the BBC would be in a good position. Right now it’s not so clear. If I was the BBC I would hold my nerve.
Brekkie, Ash101 and London Lite gave kudos
Inspector Sands13,835 posts since 25 Aug 2004
Can you imagine what ITV Parliament would be like now in 2019 if Thatcher had offered that for real?

Wasn't Granada or Carlton involved in the Parliament Channel before the channel was transferred to BBC's remit

No it was operated by United Artists Cable and paid for by the cable companies (when there was more than one!). For a while BBC Parliament was played out by Millbank Studios which was owned by Granada/Carlton. Its now in house and from the BBC bit of Millbank I think

The BBC still has no role in covering the proceedings, that's now done by a company called Bowtie TV
Brekkie32,024 posts since 4 Jan 2003
HTV Wales Wales Today
Presumably all those papers so outraged at pensioners having to pay for the BBC are willing to give away their products for free to the over 75s too.

As for other funding options through taxation - as much as I like the idea of it being funded through a levy on commercial and subscription rivals, and even the wider industry such as the press and ISPs, practically it would be complex and raise far less.

Direct taxation another option, but there is a general reluctance to add 1% to the tax rates to raise funds for the NHS so not going to happen for the BBC.

The BBC could have gone further and excluded those on pension credit who have someone under 75 in their household. It really needs to be remembered though this never was the BBC's gift to pensioners - it was funded as a welfare benefit from general taxation, not something the BBC decided to do for pensioners then withdrew. Indeed if anything the rest of us should be angry for our taxes funding pensioners licence fees for so long.
I preferred the internet when it had a sense of humour.
japitts and iee_reith gave kudos
Andrew13,727 posts since 27 Mar 2001
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)

Wouldn't be surprised to see Good Morning Britain leapfrog in front of BBC Breakfast now in the ratings and viewer share, and the BBC's viewing figures collapse generally.

I'm not entirely sure how you've jumped to that conclusion.

Piers sounding off about the issue of the day, and the fact today's issue was the Licence Fee, means viewers will now stop watching BBC Breakfast?