Whilst I have always been a stout defender of the BBC licence fee....

..... I feel the time is rapidly approaching when the commercial reality of modern times must result in the tearing up of the charter and replacing with a new business model.

The fact is that the cost of the licence is not the issue (given that less than £15 per month is a fraction of what many people are prepared to pay for Sky which also bombards you with Adverts and an editorial policy 'guided' by someone like Murdock with right wing leanings). Rather it is the rapidly diminishing quality of programme output.

The result is that the BBC no longer provides an impartial view of domestic and world affairs we used to enjoy and the standard of journalism has plummeted as many articles seem to merely regurgitate hand outs and little 'in depth' investigative, 'questioning' journalism takes place.

Sports coverage, or rather lack of, has descended into farce with the so called 'ring fenced' "crown jewels" as they were described a number of years ago falling by the way-side one by one, The latest was Formula One which, whilst not everyone's cup of tea, was a Sport dominated by the UK where most of the engineering excellence emanates (not to mention the current WDC hails from Britain).

Any Commercial organisation offering a reduced quality (some would say sub-standard product) would be faced with many people cancelling their contract due to the service no longer providing what they signed up to. Unfortunately, the BBC is immune to the simple laws of supply and demand.

I wonder what would happen if there was mass civil disobedience and people simply refused to pay the licence fee on the grounds that the BBC is no longer fit for purpose and the service offered has diminished with no proportionate reduction in cost to the consumer? The courts would be swamped.

The BBC has taken the easy option and rather than increasing efficiency and reducing overheads (3 pundits ????.for football MOTD for example and too many Heads of department etc.) they have simply cut corners and produced or bought in cheap to produce reality TV and cancelled major sports coverage (although we still have the boat race -Oarsome - NOT!!!!)

They could also increase revenue (and 'red-herring'' of licensing and copyright for films etc. is no excuse as Sky, Amazon, Netflix etc manage OK) by removing the geo-block and porting BBC onto the ASTRA TV satellite European side. If encrypted first they could then charge a decryption monthly subscription fee to all the hundreds of thousands of Expats/ English speaking Europeans who used to view BBC FOC (and still do via VPN as long as the BBC technicians haven't blocked all the VPN service providers servers in the UK) Many would gladly pay the fee for the HD feed and probably it could incorporate the FREESAT channels. Instead of investing in this they prefer to spend money 'blocking' the servers to stop people accessing the transmissions (strange way to do business)

All this brings me to the sad conclusion that BBC in its current form is no longer fit for purpose in the internet/multi media world.

Rant over and Happy New Year everyone.

 

It's not just a shame but worrying. The BBC was (albeit a distant memory) a real source of quality and impartial reporting. I cannot help but think if people like Murdoch get their grubby hands on it it will become a mouthpiece for whichever political party that Murdoch and his ilk support (and have a huge influence over).

Britain is increasingly heading towards those fantasy, dystopian societies like you see in films like 'V for Vendetta' where the control by the Government over the media (including social media) is absolute.

 

There is NO mechanism for buying a BBC licence, paying a subscription and no legal way of viewing BBC outside the UK. whilst technically it is possible e.g. via VPN it is increasingly difficult especially as the latest ASTRA satellite UK beam is much narrower than the old one.

I live in Italy and we also HAVE to pay an annual Italian TV licence fee. Interestingly, unlike existing UK legislation they deem any means of receiving TV programs as requiring a licence. This means if you have Broadband , whether or not you watch any TV, live, catchup via Internet etc. you must pay the licence fee. Many people (not us) as far away as Greece used to have satellite dishes (some 3m diameter!!) and could receive the overspill from the old Astra transmission. It was very random though and some areas much closer got zero signal. In addition Sky used to have a contract (presumably) with BBC/ Freesat and used to relay all the UK channels to the continent but BBCstopped that a few years ago.

I would NEVER subscribe to Sky.

I acknowledge that to access BBC without a licence is strictly speaking illegal but the problem is BBC's charter pre-dates the EU, occupational mobility of people and also, the internet. There must be a get-out somewhere but I once read that the EU member states are required by law to allow unfettered and free cross border of media transmissions so I am not sure how BBC get around that by geo-blocking transmissions. One of the ways I suppose was to tighten the beam so that even caravanners in Northern France could no longer get BBC signals. But it goes back to my original point. Technically either via IP-T or via satellite BBC could open up Europe and charge. Instead people WILL resort to VPN and other technical solutions to get BBC FOC.
Italian TV is pretty abysmal but we tend to use it to help with the language. Entertainment wise have Netflix, buy Blu Ray disks for films and TV series and I watch F1 on Italian HD TV and put up with the Italian emphasis on everything Ferrari (when in Rome and all that....) My wife does like the odd BBC/ITV ITV player drama though and even if they offered limited Pay per view on iPlayer that would suffice. Saving the cost of VPN would mean money into BBC coffers rather than VPN providers and allow people to view 'legallyl'

 

As I said in my OP the cost is not the issue. People I speak to complain, not so much about the cost, but the lack of choice whether or not to get it. A product should be optional and that is what the BBC is. It is like a law being passed to say you must pay to support your local football team or an obligatory subscription to the Cinema. It would not happen.

Compared to Sky BBC used to be a bargain but that was when it offered a wide choice particularly coverage of major sporting events. If it becomes a niche market when everyone has to pay then it is no longer a bargain and not a viable business model without the backing of the government. By capping the licence fee and allowing poor management practice to continue they have scuppered the BBC good and proper. As our National broadcast service it is fast becoming a joke in spite of the quality of a handful of productions and the professionalism of many of the producers and technical people involved.

 

Yes but you pay a lot for SKY AND have to endure hours of adverts. That alone is one reason I won't have SKY. Oh and Murdoch. I have no objection to people making money but he really does take the pi*s. That said at least you have the choice whether or not to subscribe.

 

True enough. Italy drives you nuts. Programme information is only about 1 day at a time. Programmes run late or not at all and advert breaks can last up to 9 minutes. We sometimes record films and my missus starts record 15 minutes before a film is due to start and then allows 45 minutes after the next programme is due to start. Even with that because of countless long commercial breaks we sometimes experience the " and the killer is.........."????? WTF??" situation where the recording stops before the film ends. The last time was when 'In pursuit of happiness' with Will Smith finished before he caught it!! (just as he was being called into the office to find out if he had got the job, so we had to go on the t'internet to find out what happened. The bookies could offer long odds on programming a Humax box to actually record all of the desired program.