ten times the BBC licence fee to be able to watch series like The Green Planet once a year.

Then BBC should should be a subscription service like cable TV or Sky TV packages.

I get the box sets for all these things; the older I get the more I love them.

Green Man wrote:
Then BBC should should be a subscription service like cable TV or Sky TV packages.

No. This is what many people just fail to understand.

The BBC exists to make available the full range of information, education and entertainment to the whole nation, regardless of their social, cultural or economic situation. It is expressly designed to combat elites.

If it was subscription-based, then it would automatically become a servant of elites.

So argue to scrap it by all means, but subscription arguments just don't make sense. You may as well demand that the NHS becomes private - it's the opposite of its actual purpose.

Rick wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:


If it was subscription-based, then it would automatically become a servant of elites.



It is subscription based - the licence fee. Enforced subscription (in theory). It is the servant of elites - witness it's shameful coverage of Covid. But I do love the wildlife, some dramas & films and Radio 3 alone is worth the price for me.

Governments like the licence fee because it highlights the public contribution and makes it easy to exploit. If you were to make the public funding of, say, Trident via a specific annual payment, then you'd have even more public rebellion. The idea that no public funding should happen unless everyone specifically wants to pay for it would leave Parliament with barely any budget. It's very cynical the way the funding of the BBC (we also partly fund ITV and Channel 4, but that's never publicised) is always depicted by governments as if it wasn't their idea in the first place. There's never actually been a need for a licence fee as basic funding, it could and should have been funded via the normal resources. But that would kill the easily manipulable controversy that politicians like to stoke up whenver they fall out wih the BBC. If politicians are so devoted to 'listening to the public' and acting on their 'choices,' then publish an annual 'shopping list' of public funding and 'listen' to what the public doesn't wish to keep paying for. Yep, thought not!

Rick wrote:
Green Man wrote:
Then BBC should should be a subscription service like cable TV or Sky TV packages.

No. This is what many people just fail to understand.

The BBC exists to make available the full range of information, education and entertainment to the whole nation, regardless of their social, cultural or economic situation. It is expressly designed to combat elites.

If it was subscription-based, then it would automatically become a servant of elites.

So argue to scrap it by all means, but subscription arguments just don't make sense. You may as well demand that the NHS becomes private - it's the opposite of its actual purpose.

I agree with this. The problem is not that a national broadcasting company exists, because it has worked very well until recently. The problem is that it is not doing what it is supposed to and is run by ridiculous idiots with far too much power.

Get rid of the idiots, not the idea.

Rick wrote:
Green Man wrote:
Then BBC should should be a subscription service like cable TV or Sky TV packages.

No. This is what many people just fail to understand.

The BBC exists to make available the full range of information, education and entertainment to the whole nation, regardless of their social, cultural or economic situation. It is expressly designed to combat elites.

If it was subscription-based, then it would automatically become a servant of elites.

So argue to scrap it by all means, but subscription arguments just don't make sense. You may as well demand that the NHS becomes private - it's the opposite of its actual purpose.

USA never had a licence for TV, there are tons of content.

If people refuse to watch TV why do people get hounded by by letters etc ?

Elites rules the media ever regardless.

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Rick wrote:
Green Man wrote:


If it was subscription-based, then it would automatically become a servant of elites.



It is subscription based - the licence fee. Enforced subscription (in theory). It is the servant of elites - witness it's shameful coverage of Covid. But I do love the wildlife, some dramas & films and Radio 3 alone is worth the price for me.

No, it's a tax !

the license fee was always a mistake.

They should have done what Australia did with the ABC (based on the BBC model) but funded out of general revenue and telling people it costs them about 10 pence a day overall.

Commercial broadcasters love the ABC as it has no advertising and trains people who they can nick for no cost.

Except Rupert M of course who wants all State funded TV obliterated.

hedda wrote:
the license fee was always a mistake.

They should have done what Australia did with the ABC (based on the BBC model) but funded out of general revenue and telling people it costs them about 10 pence a day overall.

Commercial broadcasters love the ABC as it has no advertising and trains people who they can nick for no cost.

Except Rupert M of course who wants all State funded TV obliterated.

Even 10pence a day is too much. I only turn my TV on for DVDs. I don't even have an aerial on my roof nor a satellite dish.