BBC to delay the over 75's licence fee till august

Means testing for the over 75s costs more than making it universally free .
The cost of policing it as well as the administration far outweighs any savings that’s why it was universal to start with .

 

I get the argument, it's just that given what it provides, with regards TV, iPlayer, national and local radio and the internet, the money paid for it really does go a long way. It's only a couple of quid more than Netflix, and provides much more than they do.

To me the difference is that it goes to the state, it's essentially the cost of the infrastructure covered off, and as I said earlier, they probably make a few things you like.

I don't know, I just find it easy to justify the cost, I don't see it as stealth tax.

 

I thought that the test proposed was receipt of Pension Credit.

 

It’s a minefield, someone five pounds over the pension credit limit doesn’t qualify ?
There’s more to means testing than that otherwise people will slip through the net and it wouldn’t be fit for purpose .
The fee they would save for means testing would be by far less than policing , and for the amount they were trying to save is minimal compared.

 

You dont pay the licence to solely watch the BBC. Its a for licence to receive. Unless you changed the rules you would still need a licence to receive any other form of live tv.

 

I've asked this question before but can't remember if it was answered. What does the cost of advertising do in the sense of passing on to the customers. Extortionate celebrity fees etc. I watch a fair bit of the BBC and listen to the radio stations. Without the persistent advertising crap. ( The best drama on TV by a country mile on TV for me was/is ' In the line of duty'. Prior to that 'Spooks' )
I also like things like Game of thrones via sky which I have to pay for.
So in the scheme of things. If you want to watch your favourite programmes, you pay directly or indirectly.
I wonder if sky will reduce the cost of sky sports. Given a lot of sport is being cancelled. That's one I will fkuc right off if they don't and will not renew that part of the subscription once gone.
If you've never had Sky. A warning. You not only have to pay for the privelage of watching but sit through endless adverts. Some advert breaks lasting 8 minutes, I kid you not. I download more programmes or record more than ever to be able to skip/fast forward the adverts.
They used to say make a cup of tea during the break. Now i could rustle up a 3 course meal and still make it back in time.
PS I agree the over 75's should still get the license for nowt.

 

Never listen to BBC radio stations either I assume. Some of the best dramas. The best wildlife programmes. The best journalistic programmes. Topical or otherwise. Some sport coverage unrivalled. Are on the BBC. Sure there's summat for you amongst that lot.

 

I strongly disagree that the BBC provides more than Netflix. At least in terms of quality content.

 

Those who value the BBC should pay for it.

Those to whom it means nothing, and those, like me, who resent being harangued by Crapita goons, should be able to opt out.

It's not a vital service like the NHS or the police force. It's giving Gary Lineker a million pounds a year and enabling paedophiles like Jimmy Savile to earn a fortune whilst touching up kids.

As it stands, I can have no live television at all. I don't care because I'll watch Netflix or YouTube or whatever. But if I did want it, I'd be punished for something which is not remotely my fault.

Ooooh, I really like this Dell laptop. May I purchase it? Yes, Baka, but you have to give a chunk of the cost to HP, even though you have no interest in them (or despise them). I'll pass then, thanks, and use pen and paper.

 

how many websites, news channels, live sport and radio does Netflix have?

 

After living in Aus for the last eleven years I can echo the careful what you wish for sentiment. It's slippery slope and commericial TV here is unwatchable, with five minutes programme, five minutes adverts.

I do think they could take the fee in taxes though (and it doesn't necessarily have to be income tax), so it is in effect means tested and not an unpleasant experience for those not working. Better still, make it a worldwide service like Netflix and get subscriptions from all over the world. The fees would (should) go down for everyone then. I'd certainly pay a subscription to the BBC. Sure they would be some region restricted content due to right issues but they can overcome that hurdle fairly easily I would think.

 

So would I, if it was no more than the current licence fee. I don't watch a huge amount of BBC but I value their other services - radio, iPlayer, online news, etc.

But I'm scratching my head a bit re: Sky, Netflix, etc. Don't they all have a subscription AND adverts?

I'm also wondering where Britbox sits in all this, where BBC and ITV will be teaming up to offer a subscription based content.

 

Micky, after the launch of Astra 2E spotbeam satellite that had a narrow footprint and so meant all the people throughout Europe (expats and locals whe wanted to have English channels) as far away as Greece, could no longer receive BBC (albeit with dishes the size of Jodrell Bank in the more far flung places). I read some time ago the signals for freeview could be ported to mainland Europe and BBC and Freeview could be ported to that side. I understand the issue is less about technology and more about licencing restrictions on content and the charter which BBCoperates under. Nevertheless, BBC spend a great deal of time and resources tracking UK based proxy VPN server IPs and blocking them and playing cat and mouse with the various companies.

I have a question which as someone working for the BEEB you may know the answer to. Instead of using the extra costs of having a bbc.co.uk for domestic and bbc.com for the rest of the World and blocking access to TV transmissions why don't they sort out licencing and the charter (SKY and others stations manage it ) get the BBC broadcast to mainland Europe encrypted and charge a fee ( a percentage of the UK licence fee) to generate more income. There are hundreds of thousand of expats as well as foreign nationals who would subscribe. I do not know the relationship with Freeview but that could form part of a package with ITV, CH4 and BBC Sky used to include BBC in their package but that stopped a few years ago. Again, I have no idea why.
Currently many people just use somewhat dodgy methods to access UK TV which does nothing to boost BBCs dwindling coffers. Given Italian TV is cr*p we are using our TV (and Italian TV licence solely to view Netflix and Prime and YouTube content.

 

Oop! just posted something similar before I read this. The situation in Europe is worse since BBC actively took technical measures to prevent people accessing BBC and other UK channels which they could previously (albeit not legally) and using satellite dishes. Sky in many European countries used to have the BBC channel in its package but they stopped that a few years ago. BBC lost opportunity as you say

 

Grammar police here...its "You're wrong" as it is a contraction of 'you are' Your is possessive. Incidentally not sure he is. BBC is hog tied by the Charter IMO and it is outdated in a digital multiplex age

 

I would have thought that it would be a nightmare to arrange as tonnes of programmes will be licensed for UK only etc... not just talking Match of the Day but all the TV dramas, kids TV shows... the lot.

 

It’s a very good point, but one I barely understand, let alone know the answer to. The BBC know that the licence fee is an out-of-date model and are looking at other ways of funding ahead of the next charter renewal, but I’ve yet to see a plan that wouldn’t involve huge (seriously huge!) cuts to services. Since they decided to bend over & take one from the government, they’ve been expected to produce more & more content with an ever-dwindling budget. Programme budgets are spread so thinly it’s just unsustainable. I don’t know the answer, but after 32 yrs there & with retirement (hopefully) in 4-ish years, I’m confident that the BBC as we know it now will simply not exist.

 

Tell spell checker not me , I already knew just couldn’t be arsed to change it back but if it’s made you feel better what ho.
And yes imo he’s wrong.

 

Fair dos re grammar. I was only joking anyway as it is only a BB post and I make plenty of typos etc and can't be arsed to change 'em. Still think his opinion is valid (except I have now forgotten what that opinion was)