Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:20 pm

It's going up by a mighty £1.50p.

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:17 pm

Companies increasing prices while the world is suffering....hang your f*****g heads in shame!

DustyBawls wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:35 pm

Are you permanently pi$$ed?

It's no surprise at all that they have increased their price. And it's worth it to watch our highlight wins on Match of the Day.

tarkys_ears wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:45 pm

If the government insist on the BBC keep being funded so they can spread their propaganda round the world, the foreign budget should cover it!

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:51 pm

Subscribing to Netflix costs more than the tv licence

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:51 pm

Subscribing to Netflix costs more than the tv licence

tarkys_ears wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:45 pm

If the government insist on the BBC keep being funded so they can spread their propaganda round the world, the foreign budget should cover it!

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:58 pm

Hang on, I thought the defund mob all hate the BBC because it's apparently Woke, left wing and liberal.

pushpinpussy wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:35 pm

i can never understand why people complain about the price of a TV licence. The amount of TV people watch and the quality and quantity of programmes we get is unbelievable.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:51 pm

After experiencing the mass, mind numbing saturation of advertising on US TV and radio, I’d say be careful what you wish for.

As highlighted above, the radio coverage is worth it alone.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:51 pm

After experiencing the mass, mind numbing saturation of advertising on US TV and radio, I’d say be careful what you wish for.

As highlighted above, the radio coverage is worth it alone.

Billy Balfour wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:52 pm

Oh, and so is the BBC World News TV service.

pushpinpussy wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:35 pm

i can never understand why people complain about the price of a TV licence. The amount of TV people watch and the quality and quantity of programmes we get is unbelievable.

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:09 pm

You don't watch the BBC, LeadBelly ?
Seriously ?

Stayingup wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:17 pm

But this is TV. Not radio.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:42 am

It's easy to get distracted in this debate by some of the sheer crap that the BBC puts out, and while there is a load of great stuff made, too, I don't think that alone is a particularly compelling argument for why it should continue to operate and be funded according to its current model, which is why it's important to look pragmatically, if not romantically, at the BBC as an institution on the nation of Britain, and not merely as an entertainment provider. Its funding model means it doesn't need to chase ratings, which saves it from the ignominy of chasing the lowest common denominator at the expense of invaluable yet less popular content, but the minute you change its model to an opt-in subscription service, it becomes led by commercial imperatives rather than public service imperatives. When viewed in these terms, arguments against the licence fee essentially boil down to arguments against the existence of a cultural and arguably social institution.

There's also the fact the BBC is a projection of our soft power on the world. You can't argue with a straight face that a nation's cultural exports have no effect on its place in the world. The USA, for instance, has a very weak and underfunded public service broadcaster, meaning its cultural exports are wedded by dint of their funding models to the furtherance of US corporate hegemony. Think, "USA number 1" spoken in broken English, and the global fascination with US products. Sure, we can and do project UK interests by disseminating our culture around the world and there's no reason that can't theoretically be done by private funding any more than already happens, but consider that if we lose the BBC, it will cease to be be a projection on the world made by a public institution, and we hand over cultural soft power entirely to corporate interests with, at best, a casual, somewhat disinterested regard for what 'Britishness' even means and whose primary motivation is to make money. If under a subscription-funded model market logic dictates that self-censoring is essential in order to capture, for example, the Chinese market, then there could come a point where someone at the BBC might need to make an editorial decision to alter its output in a way that doesn't necessarily serve the British, because as mentioned above, commercial factors will come into conflict with whatever remnants are left of its public service objectives. If the BBC's funding is secure as it is under the licence fee system, it can deliver on its public service remit more effectively.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:42 am

It's easy to get distracted in this debate by some of the sheer crap that the BBC puts out, and while there is a load of great stuff made, too, I don't think that alone is a particularly compelling argument for why it should continue to operate and be funded according to its current model, which is why it's important to look pragmatically, if not romantically, at the BBC as an institution on the nation of Britain, and not merely as an entertainment provider. Its funding model means it doesn't need to chase ratings, which saves it from the ignominy of chasing the lowest common denominator at the expense of invaluable yet less popular content, but the minute you change its model to an opt-in subscription service, it becomes led by commercial imperatives rather than public service imperatives. When viewed in these terms, arguments against the licence fee essentially boil down to arguments against the existence of a cultural and arguably social institution.

There's also the fact the BBC is a projection of our soft power on the world. You can't argue with a straight face that a nation's cultural exports have no effect on its place in the world. The USA, for instance, has a very weak and underfunded public service broadcaster, meaning its cultural exports are wedded by dint of their funding models to the furtherance of US corporate hegemony. Think, "USA number 1" spoken in broken English, and the global fascination with US products. Sure, we can and do project UK interests by disseminating our culture around the world and there's no reason that can't theoretically be done by private funding any more than already happens, but consider that if we lose the BBC, there ceases to exist a projection on the world made by a public institution, and we hand over cultural soft power entirely to corporate interests with, at best, a casual, somewhat disinterested regard for what 'Britishness' even means and whose primary motivation is to make money. If under a subscription-funded model market logic dictates that self-censoring is essential in order to capture, for example, the Chinese market, then there could come a point where someone at the BBC might need to make an editorial decision to alter its output in a way that doesn't necessarily serve the British, because as mentioned above, commercial factors will come into conflict with whatever remnants are left of its public service objectives. If the BBC's funding is secure as it is under the licence fee system, it can deliver on its public service remit more effectively.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:51 am

What a load of drama queenery nonsense.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:42 am

It's easy to get distracted in this debate by some of the sheer crap that the BBC puts out, and while there is a load of great stuff made, too, I don't think that alone is a particularly compelling argument for why it should continue to operate and be funded according to its current model, which is why it's important to look pragmatically, if not romantically, at the BBC as an institution on the nation of Britain, and not merely as an entertainment provider. Its funding model means it doesn't need to chase ratings, which saves it from the ignominy of chasing the lowest common denominator at the expense of invaluable yet less popular content, but the minute you change its model to an opt-in subscription service, it becomes led by commercial imperatives rather than public service imperatives. When viewed in these terms, arguments against the licence fee essentially boil down to arguments against the existence of a cultural and arguably social institution.

There's also the fact the BBC is a projection of our soft power on the world. You can't argue with a straight face that a nation's cultural exports have no effect on its place in the world. The USA, for instance, has a very weak and underfunded public service broadcaster, meaning its cultural exports are wedded by dint of their funding models to the furtherance of US corporate hegemony. Think, "USA number 1" spoken in broken English, and the global fascination with US products. Sure, we can and do project UK interests by disseminating our culture around the world and there's no reason that can't theoretically be done by private funding any more than already happens, but consider that if we lose the BBC, there ceases to exist a projection on the world made by a public institution, and we hand over cultural soft power entirely to corporate interests with, at best, a casual, somewhat disinterested regard for what 'Britishness' even means and whose primary motivation is to make money. If under a subscription-funded model market logic dictates that self-censoring is essential in order to capture, for example, the Chinese market, then there could come a point where someone at the BBC might need to make an editorial decision to alter its output in a way that doesn't necessarily serve the British, because as mentioned above, commercial factors will come into conflict with whatever remnants are left of its public service objectives. If the BBC's funding is secure as it is under the licence fee system, it can deliver on its public service remit more effectively.