DO
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
Sorry if this is a daft question but this got me thinking. Say the BBC did have to operate on the basis of an optional subscription. How would that be achieved? For instance, if you subscribe to Sky, Virgin etc. you have to have a separate receiver that decrypts the pay channels. However, the BBC is available at the moment by just plugging in an aerial. If BBC channels became pay TV channels, how would that be managed? Would you have to have a separate receiver just for the BBC? If that's the case, I'm sure it would go down like a lead balloon with many people. Or is there some way that people could still view the BBC on existing equipment?
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
IT
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It was just one of those curiosities that crossed my mind when I heard this "news". Can you tell me what those solutions are, then, as I'm genuinely interested.
itsrobert
Founding member
Sorry if this is a daft question but this got me thinking. Say the BBC did have to operate on the basis of an optional subscription. How would that be achieved? For instance, if you subscribe to Sky, Virgin etc. you have to have a separate receiver that decrypts the pay channels. However, the BBC is available at the moment by just plugging in an aerial. If BBC channels became pay TV channels, how would that be managed? Would you have to have a separate receiver just for the BBC? If that's the case, I'm sure it would go down like a lead balloon with many people. Or is there some way that people could still view the BBC on existing equipment?
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It was just one of those curiosities that crossed my mind when I heard this "news". Can you tell me what those solutions are, then, as I'm genuinely interested.
DO
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It was just one of those curiosities that crossed my mind when I heard this "news". Can you tell me what those solutions are, then, as I'm genuinely interested.
(Parts of) the Government have come up with a solution to a problem. You are pointing out a problem with that solution, therefore either their solution is inadequate, or you're making stuff up because you don't agree with it. Since it could never be the former, rather than engage you on the issues you've identified, they will just call you out as a liar, fraud or expert and tell everyone to ignore you.
I was being a bit facetious, but it's the way things are done these days. The "No 10 sources" don't have an answer to how people would actually access the BBC as a subscription service, and they have no interest in coming up with a solution to that. What they are trying to do at the moment is sell the idea that a subscription service would work, and would be in everybody's (read, party voters) best interests. That there's no workable way of making that happen right now is secondary to selling that message.
Sorry if this is a daft question but this got me thinking. Say the BBC did have to operate on the basis of an optional subscription. How would that be achieved? For instance, if you subscribe to Sky, Virgin etc. you have to have a separate receiver that decrypts the pay channels. However, the BBC is available at the moment by just plugging in an aerial. If BBC channels became pay TV channels, how would that be managed? Would you have to have a separate receiver just for the BBC? If that's the case, I'm sure it would go down like a lead balloon with many people. Or is there some way that people could still view the BBC on existing equipment?
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It was just one of those curiosities that crossed my mind when I heard this "news". Can you tell me what those solutions are, then, as I'm genuinely interested.
(Parts of) the Government have come up with a solution to a problem. You are pointing out a problem with that solution, therefore either their solution is inadequate, or you're making stuff up because you don't agree with it. Since it could never be the former, rather than engage you on the issues you've identified, they will just call you out as a liar, fraud or expert and tell everyone to ignore you.
I was being a bit facetious, but it's the way things are done these days. The "No 10 sources" don't have an answer to how people would actually access the BBC as a subscription service, and they have no interest in coming up with a solution to that. What they are trying to do at the moment is sell the idea that a subscription service would work, and would be in everybody's (read, party voters) best interests. That there's no workable way of making that happen right now is secondary to selling that message.
MK
A question though about whether you choose to pay for broadband or it is now a basic necessity, which pretty much regardless of the supplier is dearer than the licence fee, usually with virtually no content.
Broadband can hardly be compared to the BBC with regards to content. It's a totally different thing. Same with pretty much anything else you pay a bill for. Even Sky is quite different to the BBC in its offer (and is why the prescription model wouldn't work for the BBC).
Yes, you could choose to have no TV but people use TVs for many things these days: watching the myriad of non-BBC channels, playing video games, Amazon/Netflix, even as a PC monitor. Even people who don't have TVs get harassed; as the license authorities simply don't believe they don't own one.
Whatever one thinks of the BBC, the license fee is getting increasingly archaic and will probably be untenable at some point in the future. More and more people are choosing simply not to pay it, which makes enforcement more difficult and more costs put upon those who still pay.
I think the can will end up being kicked down the road again. Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually think BoJo is that much of a radical. Cummings is moreso, but I doubt he's the all powerful puppet master the media have romanticised him into being.
You choose to pay for Sky though. A key difference.
A question though about whether you choose to pay for broadband or it is now a basic necessity, which pretty much regardless of the supplier is dearer than the licence fee, usually with virtually no content.
Broadband can hardly be compared to the BBC with regards to content. It's a totally different thing. Same with pretty much anything else you pay a bill for. Even Sky is quite different to the BBC in its offer (and is why the prescription model wouldn't work for the BBC).
Yes, you could choose to have no TV but people use TVs for many things these days: watching the myriad of non-BBC channels, playing video games, Amazon/Netflix, even as a PC monitor. Even people who don't have TVs get harassed; as the license authorities simply don't believe they don't own one.
Whatever one thinks of the BBC, the license fee is getting increasingly archaic and will probably be untenable at some point in the future. More and more people are choosing simply not to pay it, which makes enforcement more difficult and more costs put upon those who still pay.
I think the can will end up being kicked down the road again. Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually think BoJo is that much of a radical. Cummings is moreso, but I doubt he's the all powerful puppet master the media have romanticised him into being.
IT
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It was just one of those curiosities that crossed my mind when I heard this "news". Can you tell me what those solutions are, then, as I'm genuinely interested.
(Parts of) the Government have come up with a solution to a problem. You are pointing out a problem with that solution, therefore either their solution is inadequate, or you're making stuff up because you don't agree with it. Since it could never be the former, rather than engage you on the issues you've identified, they will just call you out as a liar, fraud or expert and tell everyone to ignore you.
I was being a bit facetious, but it's the way things are done these days. The "No 10 sources" don't have an answer to how people would actually access the BBC as a subscription service, and they have no interest in coming up with a solution to that. What they are trying to do at the moment is sell the idea that a subscription service would work, and would be in everybody's (read, party voters) best interests. That there's no workable way of making that happen right now is secondary to selling that message.
If that day ever comes then I suspect they would leave it up to the BBC to make it work. I'd love to see how they would square that circle, but let's hope it never happens.
itsrobert
Founding member
I believe the official answer is "PROJECT FEAR (mk2)". Stop coming up with problems when there are solutions ready to be implemented.
Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It was just one of those curiosities that crossed my mind when I heard this "news". Can you tell me what those solutions are, then, as I'm genuinely interested.
(Parts of) the Government have come up with a solution to a problem. You are pointing out a problem with that solution, therefore either their solution is inadequate, or you're making stuff up because you don't agree with it. Since it could never be the former, rather than engage you on the issues you've identified, they will just call you out as a liar, fraud or expert and tell everyone to ignore you.
I was being a bit facetious, but it's the way things are done these days. The "No 10 sources" don't have an answer to how people would actually access the BBC as a subscription service, and they have no interest in coming up with a solution to that. What they are trying to do at the moment is sell the idea that a subscription service would work, and would be in everybody's (read, party voters) best interests. That there's no workable way of making that happen right now is secondary to selling that message.
If that day ever comes then I suspect they would leave it up to the BBC to make it work. I'd love to see how they would square that circle, but let's hope it never happens.
MA
A question though about whether you choose to pay for broadband or it is now a basic necessity, which pretty much regardless of the supplier is dearer than the licence fee, usually with virtually no content.
Broadband can hardly be compared to the BBC with regards to content.
Broadband is a utility, nothing more. It's just like Electricity, Gas, and Water, it enables other things to function and that's all.
Up until recently all you needed to make a telly work was electricity, soon you'll need broadband as well
I suspect nothing drastic will, and can happen with moving the BBC towards conditional access, until the government decide to switch off DTT. The switch off of DTT may well be brought forward, in order for the government to move the Beeb to a CA model
Interesting times ahead..........
You choose to pay for Sky though. A key difference.
A question though about whether you choose to pay for broadband or it is now a basic necessity, which pretty much regardless of the supplier is dearer than the licence fee, usually with virtually no content.
Broadband can hardly be compared to the BBC with regards to content.
Broadband is a utility, nothing more. It's just like Electricity, Gas, and Water, it enables other things to function and that's all.
Up until recently all you needed to make a telly work was electricity, soon you'll need broadband as well
I suspect nothing drastic will, and can happen with moving the BBC towards conditional access, until the government decide to switch off DTT. The switch off of DTT may well be brought forward, in order for the government to move the Beeb to a CA model
Interesting times ahead..........
SC
scottishtv
Founding member
That went well for the unnamed Downing Street source. One Sunday Times front page, and they've already started to consolidate support for the BBC. Below is the Daily Mail:
Never been allowed here before. My op-Ed in the Daily Mail defending the BBC. By all means reform it. But don’t vandalise it. https://t.co/8EuAtD2JxU pic.twitter.com/uUhsnshMLX
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) February 19, 2020
AN
Andrew
Founding member
What is funny is despite the best efforts by the thread creator, this issue isn’t on party political lines.
If you go on twitter and see a post where someone has put the case for the BBC being worth the money, listing how it costs tuppence a day to pay for umpteen services, they often receive a barrage of negative replies slating the corporation.
But these negative responses are generally from left leaning remainers, usually saying they don’t want to pay for the BBC due to what they see as political bias and want it to end, almost a company version of ‘cancel culture’. So it clearly isn’t just a ‘Boris/Tory’ thing.
If you go on twitter and see a post where someone has put the case for the BBC being worth the money, listing how it costs tuppence a day to pay for umpteen services, they often receive a barrage of negative replies slating the corporation.
But these negative responses are generally from left leaning remainers, usually saying they don’t want to pay for the BBC due to what they see as political bias and want it to end, almost a company version of ‘cancel culture’. So it clearly isn’t just a ‘Boris/Tory’ thing.
DJ
What is funny is despite the best efforts by the thread creator, this issue isn’t on party political lines.
If you go on twitter and see a post where someone has put the case for the BBC being worth the money, listing how it costs
tuppence a day to pay for umpteen services, they often receive a barrage of negative replies slating the corporation.
But these negative responses are generally from left leaning remainers, usually saying they don’t want to pay for
the BBC due to what they see as political bias and want it to end, almost a company version of ‘cancel culture’.
So it clearly isn’t just a ‘Boris/Tory’ thing.
All while the right-wing media (The S*n, Daily Fail ... etc.) frequently say the BBC is too biased towards left-wing and anti-Brexit views.
What is funny is despite the best efforts by the thread creator, this issue isn’t on party political lines.
If you go on twitter and see a post where someone has put the case for the BBC being worth the money, listing how it costs
tuppence a day to pay for umpteen services, they often receive a barrage of negative replies slating the corporation.
But these negative responses are generally from left leaning remainers, usually saying they don’t want to pay for
the BBC due to what they see as political bias and want it to end, almost a company version of ‘cancel culture’.
So it clearly isn’t just a ‘Boris/Tory’ thing.
All while the right-wing media (The S*n, Daily Fail ... etc.) frequently say the BBC is too biased towards left-wing and anti-Brexit views.