The BBC  permalink

BBC subscription...

Messages: 1 - 50 of 383
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    The following appeared in the Sunday Times today. It has been suggested that 70% of the population would be willing to pay up to £200 as an annual subscription which in my view is a bargain.

    MEMBERS of a panel reviewing the future of the BBC have suggested that it scrap the licence fee and switch to a subscription service from 2020.

    The radical plan has been recommended by some of the country’s most influential economists, consultants and academics and comes as the corporation faces swingeing cuts ahead of its charter renewal at the end of 2016.

    If introduced, it would be the greatest change to the BBC since its creation in 1922. 

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    So...that's you and Myles then..

    They won't get far on four hundred quid...will they...

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    <quote postid='118893539'>The following appeared in the Sunday Times today. It has been suggested that 70% of the population would be willing to pay up to £200 as an annual subscription which in my view is a bargain.

    <quote>

    But would not fund the BBC at its current scale.
    There is a grave constitutional question as to whether the future of the BBC should be determined by cutting it now or having a full and widespread debate as its charter come up for review in 2016.

    But if you read Barwise and Picard https://reutersinst...
    you will discover how the current means of funding the BBC and the exsitanace of the BBC itself promotes creativity , the UK media industry and good value and choice for the UK Viewer and listener and Web user..

    Do substantial changes and the whole lot begins to topple....
    Is this what some sectional interest want.... they may not come out of it well!

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    You obviously did not read my post carefully enough. It is thought that 70% would be prepared to pay a subscription but I got the amount wrong, it is £240 per annum not £200. Worth every penny if I don't have to listen to licence wingers any more.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by beerhead (U15819967) ** on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    I'm not keen to pay much more for a TV licence. £3'ish a week seems reasonable for the bits of the service I use... No radio, about a quarter of my tv viewing, the POV message boards, and iplayer very rarely (a couple of times a year).

    Also doesn't seem fair that, living by myself, I pay the same as a family with 3 children (and 3 televisions and 3 laptops). It's a bit like the water charges being based on the rateable value of your home. Maybe the BBC could introduce separate charging for iplayer and BBC 3, a bit like Sky who don't let people who aren't Sky subscribers access some of their on-line stuff..

    Another thought, why can't the BBC make "some" cheaper programmes? The old Sky at Night used to be just a bunch of people sat in a room chatting. Can't we make a few more programmes like that where the content is more important than the production values?

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    I would favour a reduced licence fee for a BBC lite service with subscriptions to cover premium progammes like Line of Duty and channels like BBC3 and BBC4.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by beerhead (U15819967) ** on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    smiley - ok

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    BBC Lite? I barely watch BBC 1 now and to be honest there is a lot of BBC 4 stuff that I am sure I've seen a couple of times before.

    It can't be right that quality programming and documentaries are only made available to those who can afford it? Under that regime I wouldn't have been able to see Life on Earth and classical drama etc. Why is it assumed that the masses love Eastenders, Dr Who and anything with Nick Knowles? Because I certainly don't and I am far from highbrow.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  Wolfie...there is no support in the country (apart from the commercial enemies of the BBC / those on 'the right) for a change in the way the BBC is funded. Why? because subs would mean a whole lot more expense in return for a much narrower output of programming. If the BBC went sub, 98% of it's output would be lost over night never to be commissioned again.

    Remind us, The Sunday Times belongs to which media mogul?

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    So...that's you and Myles then..

    They won't get far on four hundred quid...will they... 
    Listen wolfie, all the surveys done come out with the same answer.

    Licence fee vs ads? Licence fee wins hands down. Why do you think the BBC is so popular?

    Licence fee vs general taxation? Does the country want it's version of Russia Today? er no.

    Licence fee vs subs? Again licence fee wins again. Why? because the masses aren't stupid. They know that a whole load of great programming would be lost in one foul swoop...and at a much great financial cost.

    YOU want the BBC to go sub because it suits YOU. Well you aren't the only pebble on the beach. The BBC is hugely valued by the nation due to it's excellent programming both on television and radio. Trust me, the politicians are stupid but they aren't that stupid. They mess with our BBC at their peril.

    Politicians...we are all watching you...especially them Tories!

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    <quote postid='118893809'><quote postid='118893539'>The following appeared in the Sunday Times today. It has been suggested that 70% of the population would be willing to pay up to £200 as an annual subscription which in my view is a bargain.

    <quote>

    But would not fund the BBC at its current scale.
    There is a grave constitutional question as to whether the future of the BBC should be determined by cutting it now or having a full and widespread debate as its charter come up for review in 2016.

    But if you read Barwise and Picard https://reutersinst...
    you will discover how the current means of funding the BBC and the exsitanace of the BBC itself promotes creativity , the UK media industry and good value and choice for the UK Viewer and listener and Web user..

    Do substantial changes and the whole lot begins to topple....
    Is this what some sectional interest want.... they may not come out of it well!</quote>Once again, you are absolutely right. I totally agree with you.

    Let me pose this question more generally...would the politicians be happy for all the UK media to be in the hands of the private sector? Answers on a post card.

    If the BBC went sub, what would be the impact on the rest of the industry and the country more widely? Who would be the winners? Who would be the losers? Same applies to the BBC taking ads.

    A well funded BBC funded by the licence fee is the only answer. Any alternative would be a negative for the viewer, the creative industries, our democracy more widely, how the UK is perceived around the world and for UK PLC more generally.

    The BBC is one of the world's finest broadcasters. What impression (around the world) would it create if the Brits got rid of Auntie?

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    I'm not keen to pay much more for a TV licence. £3'ish a week seems reasonable for the bits of the service I use... No radio, about a quarter of my tv viewing, the POV message boards, and iplayer very rarely (a couple of times a year).

    Also doesn't seem fair that, living by myself, I pay the same as a family with 3 children (and 3 televisions and 3 laptops). It's a bit like the water charges being based on the rateable value of your home. Maybe the BBC could introduce separate charging for iplayer and BBC 3, a bit like Sky who don't let people who aren't Sky subscribers access some of their on-line stuff..

    Another thought, why can't the BBC make "some" cheaper programmes? The old Sky at Night used to be just a bunch of people sat in a room chatting. Can't we make a few more programmes like that where the content is more important than the production values? 
    I think of the licence fee as an investment / insurance...much like my NI contributions which fund the NHS...much like the money I spend on contents / buildings insurance...much like the money I contribute to support things like the environment...the up keep of the roads...the maintenance of forest and public parks...much like the money I contribute to fund museums...much like the money I spend which goes into schools.

    I may not want to watch the television / radio this week or next, but how do I know that there won't be something in the future what I will want to watch / listen to?
    I may not need a hospital or a doctor today, but I might next week. We fund our public services today for a possible / potential use tomorrow. If we don't fund our public services today, they won't be there tomorrow when we might need them.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    I would favour a reduced licence fee for a BBC lite service with subscriptions to cover premium progammes like Line of Duty and channels like BBC3 and BBC4.  We have to be careful when we start to say...licence fee for this (for services I use) but subs for things I don't. It works now because we all fund all of it and the nation benefits. I don't use all the BBC's services by any means, but I am happy to fund them.

    Did you see my BBC Archive thread? My proposal there was to fund an archive only channel via a sub. What do you think?

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    It can't be right that quality programming and documentaries are only made available to those who can afford it?   It happens now. If I want to see Mad Men I have to get Sky or the DVD. Why is it assumed that the masses love Eastenders, Dr Who and anything with Nick Knowles? Because I certainly don't and I am far from highbrow.  It's not an assumption it's fact based on the audience figures.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    I am talking about BBC output.

    The licence fee is just about acceptable when the BBC provides diverse programmes that cater for the majority. I can't stand EE, Dr Who or Nick Knowles but I appreciate some do. As long as I can have Springwatch, Only Connect and various documentaries then there is a balance.

    If I have to pay extra for programming that the BBC has in the past been able to make when I am struggling financially then I may as well not have a tv at all.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    We all benefit from the BBC funded by the licence fee. It forces ITV to at least try. Believe you me, if it could get away with just showing the test card, it would.

    The licence fee keeps the cost of television down to, whilst at the same time, providing quality UK programming for the nation.

    If the BBC goes sub, ITV would follow suit...shortly followed by 4, 5 and the rest of the ad channels. As a nation we would be worse off. We would be left with a much narrower output of programming at a much higher cost to all of us. The only benefactors of privatization are share-holders. Uh oh...in the words of The Teletubbies!

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Suki (U4915486) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  Nothing, I would be happy to have the BBC go from my tv.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Suki (U4915486) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  Nothing, I would be happy to have the BBC go from my tv.  You must be on a wind up surely. The only reason to have a tv and a radio is to receive BBC Television and BBC Radio!

    I cannot understand anyone who defends the commercial / private sector.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    Netflix has made original progammes but in minuscule numbers compared with BBC output. The revival of Ripper Street by Amazon to be shown later on the BBC is an interesting development. Maybe the BBC will broadcast House of Cards.

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black. 
    Are they all American rubbish?

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black. 
    Are they all American rubbish? 
    Still trolling l see Myles.

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black. 
    Are they all American rubbish? 
    Still trolling l see Myles. 
    Asking a perfectly acceptable question. Perhaps you are able to provide an answer. Anyone would think that you are 'following' me. I hope you aren't!

    Any way, I look forward to reading a constructive comment from you soon!

    BBC is the best, better than all the rest...oh I feel a song coming on...!

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black. 
    Are they all American rubbish? 
    Still trolling l see Myles. 
    Asking a perfectly acceptable question. Perhaps you are able to provide an answer. Anyone would think that you are 'following' me. I hope you aren't!

    Any way, I look forward to reading a constructive comment from you soon!

    BBC is the best, better than all the rest...oh I feel a song coming on...! 
    He's a troll roll de roll.

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black. 
    Are they all American rubbish? 
    Still trolling l see Myles. 
    Asking a perfectly acceptable question. Perhaps you are able to provide an answer. Anyone would think that you are 'following' me. I hope you aren't!

    Any way, I look forward to reading a constructive comment from you soon!

    BBC is the best, better than all the rest...oh I feel a song coming on...! 
    He's a troll roll de roll. 
    I am pleased you find me so attractive!

    So tell me...the negatives of the BBC going subscription. I will give you some clues as to how you should be thinking...

    1. the effects on programming?
    2. the independence of the BBC?
    3. the effect on the UK's creative industries?
    4. the effect on the rest of the industry?
    5. whether subscription and public service broadcasting are a contradiction in terms?

    Let's see how we go. I am not holding my breath.

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black. 
    Are they all American rubbish? 
    Actually no. (It's House of Cards by the way). It's also worth mentioning that Netflix shows a lot of old BBC shows as well as shows from the C4 and ITV archives alongside US programming. The best of the latter is of course Breaking Bad.
    I am very happy with my Netflix subscription but in no way does it replace the BBC.

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    How much a month would you be willing to pay to view BBC television if subscriptions replaced the licence...  £6 a month (£72 a year) - same as my Netflix sub.  Correct me if I'm wrong but does netfix actually make programmes or do they just stream other channels stuff and films, I think I'd rather pay £12 a month and get diversity 
    Netflix does make programmes -
    en.wikipedia.org/wik... 
    The brilliant Hemlock Grove, Game of Cards and Orange is the new black. 
    Are they all American rubbish? 
    Actually no. (It's House of Cards by the way). It's also worth mentioning that Netflix shows a lot of old BBC shows as well as shows from the C4 and ITV archives alongside US programming. The best of the latter is of course Breaking Bad.
    I am very happy with my Netflix subscription but in no way does it replace the BBC. 
    ...and that is one of the BBC's most important functions...investing in new talent, both on and off the screen. Without the licence fee, there is no way that would continue. We would just be left with archive series...and the creative industries would die. Not healthy considering that the BBC generates so much for UK PLC.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Suki (U4915486) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    The following appeared in the Sunday Times today. It has been suggested that 70% of the population would be willing to pay up to £200 as an annual subscription which in my view is a bargain.

    MEMBERS of a panel reviewing the future of the BBC have suggested that it scrap the licence fee and switch to a subscription service from 2020.

    The radical plan has been recommended by some of the country’s most influential economists, consultants and academics and comes as the corporation faces swingeing cuts ahead of its charter renewal at the end of 2016.

    If introduced, it would be the greatest change to the BBC since its creation in 1922. 
     
    Not many I know would pay that. Was every single person asked personally? No one asked me.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Suki (U4915486) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    So...that's you and Myles then..

    They won't get far on four hundred quid...will they... 
    Listen wolfie, all the surveys done come out with the same answer.

    Licence fee vs ads? Licence fee wins hands down. Why do you think the BBC is so popular?

    Licence fee vs general taxation? Does the country want it's version of Russia Today? er no.

    Licence fee vs subs? Again licence fee wins again. Why? because the masses aren't stupid. They know that a whole load of great programming would be lost in one foul swoop...and at a much great financial cost.

    YOU want the BBC to go sub because it suits YOU. Well you aren't the only pebble on the beach. The BBC is hugely valued by the nation due to it's excellent programming both on television and radio. Trust me, the politicians are stupid but they aren't that stupid. They mess with our BBC at their peril.

    Politicians...we are all watching you...especially them Tories! 
    Same answer? No one asked me or anyone in my house so obviously it does not include everybody. Licence fee will never be my choice.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    The following appeared in the Sunday Times today. It has been suggested that 70% of the population would be willing to pay up to £200 as an annual subscription which in my view is a bargain.

    MEMBERS of a panel reviewing the future of the BBC have suggested that it scrap the licence fee and switch to a subscription service from 2020.

    The radical plan has been recommended by some of the country’s most influential economists, consultants and academics and comes as the corporation faces swingeing cuts ahead of its charter renewal at the end of 2016.

    If introduced, it would be the greatest change to the BBC since its creation in 1922. 
     
    Not many I know would pay that. Was every single person asked personally? No one asked me. 
    You must be hoping then that the licence fee is scrapped and that we move to subscriptions.

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by lauriemar (U8562848) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    <quote postid='118893809'><quote postid='118893539'>The following appeared in the Sunday Times today. It has been suggested that 70% of the population would be willing to pay up to £200 as an annual subscription which in my view is a bargain.

    <quote>

    But would not fund the BBC at its current scale.
    There is a grave constitutional question as to whether the future of the BBC should be determined by cutting it now or having a full and widespread debate as its charter come up for review in 2016.

    But if you read Barwise and Picard https://reutersinst...
    you will discover how the current means of funding the BBC and the exsitanace of the BBC itself promotes creativity , the UK media industry and good value and choice for the UK Viewer and listener and Web user..

    Do substantial changes and the whole lot begins to topple....
    Is this what some sectional interest want.... they may not come out of it well!</quote>Does anyone know how the Sunday Times arrived at the figure of 70% of the population? As has been mentioned already, the licence fee is based on households not individuals, so I am thinking that currently less than 70% pay the fee. To me the figure quoted does not seem logical, unless they are suggesting that the fee should be per viewer, which is clearly unworkable.

    This could be one for investigation by Radio 4's 'More or Less'!

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by lauriemar (U8562848) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    That's odd, what happened there?

    My post starts at:

    'Does anyone know how the Sunday Times arrived at the figure of 70% of the population?'

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    That's odd, what happened there?

    My post starts at:

    'Does anyone know how the Sunday Times arrived at the figure of 70% of the population?' 
    It was the opinion of a former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies.

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by lauriemar (U8562848) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    That's odd, what happened there?

    My post starts at:

    'Does anyone know how the Sunday Times arrived at the figure of 70% of the population?' 
    It was the opinion of a former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies. 
    Just a figure plucked out of the air then?

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    So what I've learned neflix charges £6 per month to show some new content mainly american (do they show ads like sky) and BBC, ITV and channel 4 repeats and some movies, doesn't sound like value for money to me compared with BBC.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    That's odd, what happened there?

    My post starts at:

    'Does anyone know how the Sunday Times arrived at the figure of 70% of the population?' 
    It was the opinion of a former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies. 
    Just a figure plucked out of the air then? 
    No it's the opinion of someone who may know a little about the subject.

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by lauriemar (U8562848) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    That's odd, what happened there?

    My post starts at:

    'Does anyone know how the Sunday Times arrived at the figure of 70% of the population?' 
    It was the opinion of a former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies. 
    Just a figure plucked out of the air then? 
    No it's the opinion of someone who may know a little about the subject. 
    Really? Perhaps he has been misquoted. smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    So what I've learned neflix charges £6 per month to show some new content mainly american (do they show ads like sky) and BBC, ITV and channel 4 repeats and some movies, doesn't sound like value for money to me compared with BBC. 
    Netflix don't show ads (nor do they broadcast with on-screen graphics plastered over the picture - which is a huge plus for me compared to most of what I'd want to watch on the BBC).

    Value for money is a personal decision, I'll take Netflix.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    So what I've learned neflix charges £6 per month to show some new content mainly american (do they show ads like sky) and BBC, ITV and channel 4 repeats and some movies, doesn't sound like value for money to me compared with BBC. 
    Netflix don't show ads (nor do they broadcast with on-screen graphics plastered over the picture - which is a huge plus for me compared to most of what I'd want to watch on the BBC).

    Value for money is a personal decision, I'll take Netflix. 
    Does Netflix provide new / original UK public service programming?

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    So what I've learned neflix charges £6 per month to show some new content mainly american (do they show ads like sky) and BBC, ITV and channel 4 repeats and some movies, doesn't sound like value for money to me compared with BBC. 
    Netflix don't show ads (nor do they broadcast with on-screen graphics plastered over the picture - which is a huge plus for me compared to most of what I'd want to watch on the BBC).

    Value for money is a personal decision, I'll take Netflix. 
    What on screen graphics?

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    Now I know you are not being serious. smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by DaphneMS (U16022021) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    What on screen graphics? 
    Digital Onscreen Graphics (DOGs) - logos some broadcasters put over programmes, usually identifying the channel being viewed.

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by lauriemar (U8562848) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    Now I know you are not being serious. smiley - smiley  Not quite, people are often misquoted by the press!

    I have found where this may have come from, which is Mr Davies' recent lecture on 'A 2020 Vision for the BBC'.

    This is an extract which covers the point in question:

    When I examined this option as Chairman, surveys suggested that, given a choice, around 60 to 70% of the population said that they would subscribe to the overall BBC package at a price close to the existing licence fee, which would currently imply a subscription charge of around £150. Even if this were true, it would obviously involve a very significant curtailment of BBC's services, since a large proportion of the current revenue would be lost. If the subscription fee were increased in order to avoid this, the number of subscribers would certainly decline, and it could no longer be claimed that the BBC represented a universal national service.

    Furthermore, once the BBC had to compete for subscription fees, it is almost inevitable that the type and direct commerciality of services would change. Why should a subscription fee based BBC not charge subscriptions for football and movies? Over time, I think this would inevitably change the focus of the organisation in a fundamental way.

    Finally, making a charge at the point of sale, in order to finance the provision of services which incur zero marginal costs in distribution, is economically inefficient, and carries welfare costs which are not necessarily immediately visible to the political system.

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    Taken from elsewhere but still relevant to the thread...

    "...Investment in public service broadcasting has much wider implications for the cultural life of the country: in music, science, the arts etc. It provides for innovation in broadcasting as well as technology and training, journalism.

    The majority of broadcasters in the UK rely on BBC trained staff, journalists who cut their teeth working as BBC trainees. All of the main innovations in digital broadcasting and teletext and NiCAM stereo before it came as a result of BBC research and development. The BBC covers music from Glastonbury to Reading, it stages both the original Proms and the Electric Proms. It had a huge role in the torch relay and the cultural Olympiad as well as providing innovative and much praised comprehensive coverage and provided content for the opening ceremony. All of this was done free from commercial interruptions and without concern for sponsors messages. Contrast this with NBC in America, where people in their droves were searching for proxy servers to watch the BBC's coverage because NBC refused to provide a proper service to the US. The trending hashtag during the Olympics was #NBCfail. That's the future without public service broadcasting.

    Aside from this, the BBC showcases the largest amount of original television content outside America, selling it's own programmes as well as those of others to over 700 buyers from more than 200 territories. It has more bureaux than any other broadcaster allowing comprehensive foreign news coverage whenever it happens with an unrivalled award winning website that comprehensively covers international, national and local news like no other broadcaster.

    BBC local radio covers practically every league football match in the country live and uniterrupted, with stations even splitting four ways sometimes, in order to make sure that as many are catered for as possible.
    I could mention Children in Need, Eurovsision, Comic and Sports Relief, 6 Music Festival, Hackney Weekend. It goes on and on and most of this costs the licence fee payer very little due to fixed costs already paid for and economies of scale.

    You see, when people talk about public service broadcasting, it is not a just paying for a few programmes on sheep shearing, basket weaving or the industrial revolution, it is about the ability to universally enrich the culture of a nation vastly in excess of the actual total income from television licences and far better than any government could do. In 2000 the government spent in excess of a billion pounds for one venue and one event on the Greenwich peninsular and lost money in a spectacular way, so it's no good asking government bodies to manage such projects or ideas. The fact that the BBC exists means that tens of thousand of people have jobs outside the corporation as a result of the multiplier effect. The estimate is that for every £1 the BBC spends, a further £7 is generated and invested in broadcasting, music, film and the arts.

    I'm through with trite and ridiculous comments on here about how Sky and Netflix is the future and how much fairer they are. It's utter nonsense. These companies only exist to make as much money as possible for their owners. The rest is just a smokescreen to make you believe that they actually care about anything else."

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    What on screen graphics? 
    Digital Onscreen Graphics (DOGs) - logos some broadcasters put over programmes, usually identifying the channel being viewed. 
    Can't say I've ever notice them on the BBC

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    What on screen graphics? 
    Digital Onscreen Graphics (DOGs) - logos some broadcasters put over programmes, usually identifying the channel being viewed. 
    Can't say I've ever notice them on the BBC 
    Sssh you see them on BBC3 and BBC4. They aren't on BBC1 and BBC2.

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.