Years ago I was a supporter of the TV license, not anymore. I think the BBC should stand, or fall, on its on merit and should now become a subscription serice.

It's a difficult one. Subscriptions link usage to revenue. Popular programmes such as East Enders, the Archers and drama like Night Manager may be fine. But there is no incentive to provide a universal service. What happens to our six orchestras (and with that the Proms), the Russian & Persian World services - the music competitions - local news, reporters all over the world. I could go on. Indeed all the services Netflix et al do not do.

Do they matter or should we be prepared to take the cultural hit and attempts to get news to the parts of the world trying to suppres it? Everybody agrees the licence fee like democracy is broken. But the alternatives do have major downsides. I don't know the solution but the fundamental question is should we pay for things we don't use but are generally accepted as good for society?

That used to be unquestionable. But now it is. Beware of easy solutions to a very complex issue.

"But there is no incentive to provide a universal service. What happens to our six orchestras (and with that the Proms), the Russian & Persian World services - the music competitions - local news, reporters all over the world."

Good questions that deserve proper thought, but which also reveal some of the core issues.

Do we need the BBC to have SIX orchestras? Why not just one or two?

Is there truly a threat to the Proms, given how popular it seems to be?

If the world service is valuable to the UK as soft power, should that not be directly funded by the Foreign Office?

Local news reports from the BBC are often claimed to be stifling competition from local news papers etc, and killing off true local journalism.

Global events (news / sports) often seem to be attended by the BBC in much greater numbers than other organisations - is that necessary for good journalism, or wasteful extravagance?

There seem to be a lot of people that want to scrap the licence fee and defund the BBC, and as many that insist that the BBC is a bastion of civilisation, and needs to be protected as is.

Perhaps a better idea would be a comprehensive review of what the BBC does, and what we, as a society (and ultimately the people that pay for it) want it to do?

> Local news reports from the BBC are often claimed to be stifling competition from local news papers etc, and killing off true local journalism.

I think Reach PLC is doing a pretty good job of destroying all other local news outlets, without any need for help from the BBC

> I think Reach PLC is doing a pretty good job of destroying all other local news outlets, without any need for help from the BBC

Indeed. The idea that these unusable sites littered with ads would somehow improve if the BBC disappeared, is pretty laughable.

Reach isnt the only game in many towns..., though it is in some.

The World Service did indeed used to be entirely funded by the Foreign Office. Then it was decided to force the BBC to do it without additional funding.

Please, not another "comprehensive review": this would just yet another opportunity for politicians and lobbies to get the boot in. Reviews are done periodically as part of the charter renewal. In addition, there is a board of governors which are supposed to oversee operations. But there's basically been the same kind of explosion of management that government advisors forced on the NHS and this has been to the detriment of almost everything else. News and current affairs were neutered under Greg Dyke and have been repeatedly cut since: for example, there is no coverage of the upcoming Gorton and Dention by-election under "UK Politics".

There seem to be a lot of people that want to scrap the licence fee and defund the BBC

Most of that coming from those who mistakenly think it'll be good for their bank accounts: the Daily Heil, the Murdoch press, Farage, etc.

Most of that coming from those who mistakenly think it'll be good for their bank accounts

Alternatively, it'd be bad for washed up hacks like RTD and countless other 'celebrities' that rely on corporate welfare from the Bbc. There's plenty of other opportunities for 'talent' to make money, if they have real talent.

I wonder if this is part of the broader argument along the lines of "I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools?" Some people's view that they should only pay for exactly what they use is so entrenched that it's difficult to even have that conversation. The schools argument you can kind of see, but what about fire? Police? Street lights? Where does it end?

Over the weekend I saw a discussion about a glimpse into what a post-licence fee world would look like, in the form of adverts running during the Six Nations rugby coverage on ITV (as in, during the actual period of play). It's not hard to imagine that getting worse, without ad-free coverage from the BBC to compare against.

I do believe there should be some kind of national broadcaster in each country, but I also agree the system isn't perfect like it is.

"Over the weekend I saw a discussion about a glimpse into what a post-licence fee world would look like, in the form of adverts running during the Six Nations rugby coverage on ITV (as in, during the actual period of play). It's not hard to imagine that getting worse, without ad-free coverage from the BBC to compare against."

I have zero interest in sport, I fail to to see the argument for the BBC to waste its limited resources on wildly expensive sports broadcasting rights when there's other funding options for those who enjoy it.

When STV had the Formula 1 coverage, all live racing was uninterrupted.

If there was proper competition, you could have competition for sporting events with the choice to pay for an ad-free service.

I wonder if this is part of the broader argument along the lines of "I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools?" Some people's view that they should only pay for exactly what they use is so entrenched that it's difficult to even have that conversation.

Most people would hopefully assume that schools are a public good, and education is a fundamental to a thriving economy.

But this is also an argument against the Bbc given it doesn't do much in the way of education, and certainly nowhere near the amount of STEM content available for 'free' on YT. Which then goes to what the Bbc should be, and how it's funded. I wouldn't mind if the Bbc showed STEM content, especially if it goes back to the good'ol days and showed Open University stuff. I do mind when I'm threatened with criminal prosecution for refusing to fund East Enders, celebrity barrel scraping shows like SCD, or renting a Lineker.

Which is then a 'right sizing' thing. So there's no reason why the Bbc couldn't become a hybrid model with FTA (free to air) PSB content being subsidised from taxation, or better yet, the Bbc's vast swathe of commercial content. Move that to subscription, then people who value the Bbc's 'entertainment' content could pay say, £10 a month for that. But the Bbc has been very strongly opposed to this sort of model. It argues that everyone loves the Bbc and it's 'worth' more than £180 a year, yet won't put its money where it's mouth is. If it's so well loved, and such great value, it should have no problem doing this.. But then Dr Who strongly suggests that it's capable of spaffing millions on garbage that people didn't watch. Even Disney seemed to be embarrassed by being assosciated with that trainwreck.

But also one of those slightly sad things. So Dr Who was orginally a pretty sneaky way to sneak some science & history education into an entertainment show. There's no real reason why it couldn't still do this, other than it picked RTD as showrunner and gave him 'creative control'... and probably a few million quid of 'our*' money. How that was allowed to happen is anybodies guess, but provided much embarrassment.

But there's also the myth of Bbc independence, which isn't true because it's governed by the Charter & Framework agreements that impose conditions on what the Bbc should be doing, and are set by the government of the day. So that could be used to split the Bbc along the original Reithian ideals of 'Inform, Educate and Entertain'.. with entertainment being carved out to subscription. That process is also why the Bbc love-bombs everyone around Charter renewal time as it attempts to justify its existence.. Which is failing, because people are increasingly voting with their wallets and deciding the Bbc simply isn't worth £180 a year.

*By 'our', I might mean 'your' because I stopped subscribing to the Bbc well over a decade ago.. And entirely legally.

The BBC does a lot of educational content and produces a lot of content for schools for nothing (nothing other than the license fee) you just might not be aware of it.

BBC Bitesize for one.

But even some of the other programs for kids are education lite. They've done Shakespear for primary aged kids. Ballet for kids and classical music as none under an 'educational' heading.

Quite frankly the adult programming could use some itellectual uplift rather than chasing the lowest denominator

Sadly the licence fee also funds a good chunk of the transmission infrastructure. I wonder how long before Freeview is switched off?

BBC news online just went behind a paywall. I can still see some stuff in a browser thanks to various script and ad suppressors, but the BBC app will stiff you every time. I guess I'm now an ex-expat.

I must be one of the few under 70s who doesn't mind paying the TV license.

Just this week I used TV to watch the Six Nations, radio to listen to it, my kids watched CBeebies/CBBC content live and on iPlayer, and I spent time reading the news.

£15/month for that doesn't seem much to me, and is better than it getting filled with adverts.

Of course if you don't use any of their output but want to watch live TV still, I can understand the frustration.

I can see it just coming under general taxation before this decade is out.

I don't mind paying it either.

I get an awful lot of content for the money and good news reporting (yes, I'm occasionally convinced it's biased but it's generally pretty fair, no I won't argue it)

It worth noting the cheaper tiers on netflix and most other streaming platforms comes with ads and some severe limitations on quality (picture resolution that is, the content is often garbage too) the number of screens it can be used on etc. and the content is often utter crap (YMMV, depends on taste)

yes, I'm occasionally convinced it's biased but it's generally pretty fair, no I won't argue it

I think the BBC does a remarkably good job of balanced reporting (ok, not every time, but most of the time).

With GBNews, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Guardian etc, you know and accept which side of the political spectrum to expect in their output.

If the BBC is upsetting people across the political spectrum, I think we can accept it's fairly neutral over all.

Agreed.

If the BBC was a person it would be Boris Johnson - Socially very conservative with a mindset of the 1950s, anti europe, pro environment, pro wealthy, anti poor and anti disabled

The BBC litters its daytime schedules with utter dirge like faked "antiques hunt shows", umpteen various flavours of property shows "Hi this is Bob and Sue, Bob works part time in a pub and Sue is a retired part time cleaner in a supermarket, their budget is £3 Million but they can stretch to £5.5 Million for their dream home" and various other shows to make hospital waiting rooms even more tortuous.

They could turn off their daytime output and it might well improve the country

"They could turn off their daytime output and it might well improve the country"

Except it wouldn't - the audience would just find their dreck somewhere else.

"I can see it just coming under general taxation before this decade is out."

It is one solution. Is it really that different to the household of the situation when nearly every household had an aerial driven TV?

Except it would be a more progressive tax but the danger is that puts it directly under the diktat of the Treasury. Pleasing government rather than the audience becomes a greater incentive. People complain the BBC is too establishment biased but they wouldn't have seen anything yet. Trying to achieve the impossible task of being unbiased would simply be replaced by not trying. Replaced by swinging to be the current government's mouthpiece as in so many countries.

" better than it getting filled with adverts "

Is it though?

You watch all these things on live TV and there is always a f**king podcast being advertised through BBC Sounds. The same podcast that is available outside of BBC Sounds and is jammed packed with adverts. Adam Buxton, I am looking at you as an example.

If, for whatever reason, a license is required to watch TV then allow that option. I do not want to fund the BBC for various reasons, primarily the idea that they are impartial and unbiased in reporting news has long been debunked. And I do not want to fund an organisation who insist on sending people door to door without appropriate warrants to intimate people in to paying for a license they don't require. There is a lot of money to be saved right there actually, the red ink must cost a fortune.

I do find it a fascinating mechanism in how the UK lives it's life though. More effort is put in to finding people watching Great British Bake Off live on Channel 4 to see if they've paid for the privilege than we do in implementing licenses for dog ownership. We used to have that, we don't now. Yet we're faced with an increase in puppy farms and general anti-social behavior which, really, a dog license program would go a long way to combat.

Just an odd, odd thing.

For the viewer yes, I fucking despise adverts.

Take the Six Nations for example that I mentioned. Yes odd mention of a podcast and follow ups on the BBC televised games.

Those cunts over at ITV have now taken to putting adverts on during the game, removing commentary and splitting the screen, example here: https://www.gbnews.com/media-library/itv-came-under-fire-for-showing-adverts-during-the-six-nations-match-between-france-and-ireland.jpg?id=63854905&width=800&quality=85

Who signed off on that deserves to be fired in my opinion.

They're practicing for the World Cup with that. As shit as it is, in a dead ball situation like that shown, I don't think it matters as much as if they did it during the actual phase of play. But I remember when they had the F1 and they would cut to a commercial break, often missing action on track.

I know from the last World Cup though that the hoardings are changed digitally during the broadcast to suit the market they're going in to. So say in Qatar, obviously, you're not advertising Budwieser. But for the UK market? Yeah, you saw it. You'd never know it either.

Sadly it might well end up being a slippery slope and it'll be interrupting game play before you know it.

That was just one example in another there was a man down for injury, normally you'd be getting commentary of what is going on. Instead the window shrunk to about quarter of the size so you couldn't see it, and the audio was replaced with some crap from Virgin Atlantic if I recall correctly, along with their ad being shown.

It's just another thing to ruin the viewing experience. Before long it'll be available on ITVX without ads for those that want to pay.

Advertising is an important part of broadcasting, I get that, it's how these broadcasters (excluding BBC) fund their operations despite my hatred of them. And I'm pro-capitalism as well so I fully understand.

But broadcasting, along with capitalism, should have lines that don't get crossed and better regulation to enforce it.

Dog licencing has been debunked multiple times - all it does is penalise dog owners on a low income, while those with money but are "bad" owners are ignored and those who cause issues don't bother buying one in the first place.

I'm with you.

I'd happily pay the licence fee just to have I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue and The News Quiz on Radio 4.

I'm under 50 and I'm ok with paying it.

It's not perfect and I don't often get what I want but it's the best option we have to not be drowned in AI slop.

It also provides the closest to unbiased new you can get.

Again I know it's not perfect but it's a lot better than you get with private money. Just spend a few minutes looking at the Mail online to see the other side of the coin.

If I had my wish it would push the boundries a bit harder, stop assuming everything is a bit thick. Challenge people again.

The Beeb needs to stay. They are one of the last bastions of proper journalism, and a haven for brilliant satire, like the News Quiz on Radio 4.

But they could save a lot of money and restore some public goodwill if they simply sacked the enforcement goons. Those who want to get TV without paying for it aren't worth the effort trying to force them, they will find a way. But the majority (so I believe - i have no evidence of course) of those who do pay the licence fee, do so willingly, i.e. honestly paying for a service. Most of us wouldn't start shoplifting if the shops stopped having CCTV. A small minority would. But if it's a small minority "stealing" TV, who cares?

Also, I have noticed quite a few coffee shops, bars etc with a small TV in the corner playing music channels. Apparently if you have a TV license and are playing music from a TV, then you don't need the PRS license.

They are one of the last bastions of proper journalism,

No they're not. One of the last bastions of centrist journalism, but there's no real desire to do proper heavyweight investigative journalism, to hold the powerful to account. When the powerful are already half down, then the Beeb will join in, but the corporation has a track record as long as my arm for being silent on its own scandals, never mind those of others. The limits these days of their journalistic bravery is chasing down a dodgy roofer, or some unlicensed tip operator.

And none of that is very surprising, the BBC is wedded at the hip to government, who appoint its boss and its grandees, and set its income. At least the Telegraph keeps a beady eye on the left, and the Guardian keep an equally beady eye on the right. The BBC doesn't keep any beady eyes on anybody.

A vote here for Channel 4 News that continues to fund the kind of investigative report and long format interview that used to the staple of British journalism – much of which was introduced by ITV in the 1960s when it knew it had to compete for quality.

A vote here for Channel 4 News that continues to fund the kind of investigative report and long format interview that used to the staple of British journalism – much of which was introduced by ITV in the 1960s when it knew it had to compete for quality.

I think a lot of people don't realise that Channel 4 is kind of the other Bbc. We also own it and we don't really need 2 PSBs. So another option would be to do a full or partial merger of the two. Which might have negative consequences, depending on who ends up in control of what.

The enforcement goons work for Crapita, not the BBC.

The government decided a long time ago that it was a good thing to split the organisation collecting the dosh from the one that was spending it.

Oh and it's TV licence , not license. In the civilised world, license is a verb, not a noun.

The enforcement goons work for Crapita, not the BBC.

No, they work for the Bbc. They're the only entity authorised to collect the licence fee. The Bbc might like to use legal fictions to pretend it isn't responsible, but it's very much Aunty's jackboots knocking on doors. They may outsource some functions to Crapita and others, but the Bbc is still responsible and accountable for the actions of their subcontractors. Which is also one of the slightly entertaining aspects, so getting weekly threatograms telling me they're opening yet another investigation into the heinous crime of being informed, educated and entertained without topping up the Bbc's jacuzzi of cash first.

You can’t compare BBC to Netflix or Disney+, that’s a completely nonsense comparison.

"BBC bumps telly tax to £180 as Netflix lurks with cheaper tiers"

Unfortunately, a previous chancellor, George Osborne, had a cynical and deliberate go at the BBC by forcing them to take over the funding of free TV licences for pensioners over the age of 75 which reduced the BBC's net income. Then certain irresponsible newspapers started non-payment of licence fees campaigns.

Personally, I would now want the UK to follow the example of France and fund the BBC out of VAT with the level of VAT being decided by a wholly independent royal charter body so that ignorant and third rate Conservative and Labour politicians have no say whatsoever in that matter or in the appointment of BBC governors or the director general.

That said, I am not uncritical of Tim Davie with his show pony 'woe is me' deep cuts to radio and TV services when he should have been trying to creatively preserve such services.

a wholly independent royal charter body

Other than sortition, how would that happen? A more likely outcome is that like all arms length bodies of government, these are overseen by a well paid and underworked committee of minister's mates and they please their patron.

I can think of a royal charter company that exists to do work without government interference: It's chief executive helps herself to over a million quid a year, would that be independent enough for you?

Unfortunately, a previous chancellor, George Osborne, had a cynical and deliberate go at the BBC by forcing them to take over the funding of free TV licences for pensioners over the age of 75 which reduced the BBC's net income. Then certain irresponsible newspapers started non-payment of licence fees campaigns.

Err.. No it didn't, and one of the reasons why I hate the Bbc. It is a compulsive liar. So once upon a time, the Bbc got a licence fee hike to fund DSO (Digital Switch Over). That's long done and dusted but the licence fee wasn't reduced. Then there were claims of making (from memory) £800m a year in 'real cash savings', which if true means it doesn't need a licence fee increase. And then there's all the Bbc's 'commercial' activities that in theory should be subsidising the PSB, but in reality seem to do the reverse and suck money out. But their commercial stuff clearly isn't working, because if it was, there would be no need to increase the licence fee at all.

And then there's the stupidity of indexation, so there's a big hike in the licence fee because inflation, driven by a big increase in tobacco duty. Tobacco isn't a big input cost to the Bbc, so that increase isn't justifiable. Or it's just the weird nature of Fagflation, indexation and how the government could knock inflation back to <2% by simply halving tobacco duty. The Bbc also gets other unearned windfalls, so the growth in housing means an increase in theoretically licenceable properties, boosting revenues at no additional cost. Well, other than enfarcement costs, but enfarcement is a sick joke.

But something I'd love to see is a detailed breakdown of say, Dr Who. One of the Bbc's most expensive productions, but also a ratings failure and damaged the Bbc's IP. The Bbc would scream 'commercially sensitive', which would be true, except the we/government owns it and it should have to justify its spending. There's also some other oddities coming, like scrapping iPlayer and moving its online content to YouTube. It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. The biggest problem the Bbc has though is it's just entirely irrelevant to an increasing number of 'viewers', especially the younger generation.

Horrifies me that I'm agreeing with Jellied Eel, but so be it.

"There's also some other oddities coming, like scrapping iPlayer and moving its online content to YouTube"

Found no evidence to support this so you're twisting what is actually happening.

The BBC has announced it is introducing some new shows first onto YouTube followed by iPlayer and Sounds in an attempt to reach a younger audience. At no stage has it been mentioned they'll be scrapping iPlayer in any way sense or form.

People like you just like posting off fake news.

The BBC has announced it is introducing some new shows first onto YouTube followed by iPlayer and Sounds in an attempt to reach a younger audience. At no stage has it been mentioned they'll be scrapping iPlayer in any way sense or form.

The Bbc already closed the ability to download content on iPlayer. If the Bbc is going to be putting its new shows onto YT, then why would it waste money duplicating what YT already does? Which might be a rhetorical question, because wasting money is what the Bbc's best at. Which is also why there's speculation that by parking the Bbc's tanks on YT's lawn, it'll use this as an excuse to justify needing a licence to watch YT. Currently there's an option to block 'channels' on YT, which I already use to block Bbc garbage, and apparently the YT content will be ad free in the UK. But currently a licence is needed for iPlayer, and there isn't a YT option to check for a licence if you subscribe to a Bbc 'channel'. But that could happen, and perhaps why there's so many pop-ups demanding a login to the Bbc 'News' site so it can link email/device IDs to licences.

People like you just like posting off fake news.

No, I leave fake news to the Bbc.

"the Bbc got a licence fee hike to fund DSO (Digital Switch Over)"

I don't think that's right. DSO started in 2007 and completed in 2012. From 2000 (the earliest I can find numbers for, but 7 years before DSO started), the license fee was rising every year by a fairly fixed amount, which averages out at about 3.4% per year, at which point (in 2000, while DSO was still happening) it was actually frozen. There's no sign of any license fee hike beyond the regular year on year increase.

You might be thinking of a fund to help people with the digital switchover, which was part funded by the BBC, but it didn't mean a hike in the licence fee.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60027436

You might be thinking of a fund to help people with the digital switchover, which was part funded by the BBC, but it didn't mean a hike in the licence fee.

Nope, it was increased to fund DSO. And no, I'm not going to go digging, but it was part of the Bbc's lies, ie making 'real cash savings' and demanding more money. There was some other oddities, like post-DSO the 'windfall' also being used by the Bbc supposedly to fund broadband rollout, and also moving funding for World Service from FCO to the Bbc. Reason why I'm not going to dig for links is because the Bbc really hates financial transparency and loves to plead poverty at every opportunity.

I pretty much agree with everyone so far. I think 180 is fairly reasonable for the output. Its the enforced nature of having to have one for live broadcasts which I think is now an anachronism. Maybe the Beeb could do both, have a subscription, which would bring in overseas revenue and or a license for UK if the homeowner thinks that would be a better deal.

BBC Studios already has it covered for international distribution, including running BritBox which is their Netflix-style subscription service (slightly separate to the UK version of BritBox)

Sorry - more like S$$tbox

Very little BBC content where I am, mainly ITV detective dramas.

No Goodies, no Dr Who, no Fawlty Towers, no Young Ones...