Crosswords0 min ago
Would The Bbc Survive As A Subscription Only Service?
24 Answers
http://
I would pay the subs myself but I fear the country is full of tight moaners who cannot see the advantage of the worlds best broadcaster in it's current form. The £145 fee is an absolute bargain, even though I ofen find the BBC to be a left wing organisation I do see the value of having the BBC in it's current form.
I would pay the subs myself but I fear the country is full of tight moaners who cannot see the advantage of the worlds best broadcaster in it's current form. The £145 fee is an absolute bargain, even though I ofen find the BBC to be a left wing organisation I do see the value of having the BBC in it's current form.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably not with its current range, quality or investments in new minority interest product.
Which is, as you imply T3, exactly why the existing system is so excellent and needs maintaining.
Would our National Parks survive if they charged like Alton Towers or our museums and galleries if they charged like the Odeon?
Which is, as you imply T3, exactly why the existing system is so excellent and needs maintaining.
Would our National Parks survive if they charged like Alton Towers or our museums and galleries if they charged like the Odeon?
Well it's interesting to look at what the subscription cost might be.
On one side not everyone in the UK would subscribe
On the other the BBC could charge for its programs internationally over iplayer so you'd not just be limited to UK subscribers
Also it rather depends on the basis - SKY obviously has to make money to pay shareholders
If the BBC were to operate as a not-for-profit organisation subscription would be much lower than if it were sold off and the target was to maximise revenue.
In the latter scenario I could see the current fee being maintained
Fat chance of any Government doing that though
On one side not everyone in the UK would subscribe
On the other the BBC could charge for its programs internationally over iplayer so you'd not just be limited to UK subscribers
Also it rather depends on the basis - SKY obviously has to make money to pay shareholders
If the BBC were to operate as a not-for-profit organisation subscription would be much lower than if it were sold off and the target was to maximise revenue.
In the latter scenario I could see the current fee being maintained
Fat chance of any Government doing that though
I dont think it is right to force people to pay for something they dont want, especially something so politically biased - and then use the Gestapo to go round and collect the debt.
Would I pay a subscription? Maybe but not for the format it is at the moment and not £145.
I think a good halfway house would be for a subscription non-profit organization, but then how would they pay huge sums to their mates on that?
Would I pay a subscription? Maybe but not for the format it is at the moment and not £145.
I think a good halfway house would be for a subscription non-profit organization, but then how would they pay huge sums to their mates on that?
The £145 is based on everyone in the country paying. But not everyone would.
If only half the people subscribed they would have to double the fee to £290. A more likely figure would be a quarter of the present payers (a similar number to SKYs subscribers). To raise the same money they would have yo charge £580 a year.
There would probably be a knock on effect on SKY as well. A lot of people would have to decide between one or the other instead of both. BBC or SKY? I know which I would sooner do without.
If only half the people subscribed they would have to double the fee to £290. A more likely figure would be a quarter of the present payers (a similar number to SKYs subscribers). To raise the same money they would have yo charge £580 a year.
There would probably be a knock on effect on SKY as well. A lot of people would have to decide between one or the other instead of both. BBC or SKY? I know which I would sooner do without.
-- answer removed --
Rescan
Aren't all taxes, taxes on households for things we may not want?
Maybe schools should just be funded by those with kids?
Doctors by those who are sick ?
Museums and art galleries by those who are interested?
Parks by those who want them?
Pice by those who want personal protection?
Who wants to go back to living like that?
Over many years our society decided that there were some things we were better off funding collectively for the greater good.
Good quality broadcasting was one of them.
Sky pap? Don't make me laugh.
"Hundreds of channels and nothing to watch"
Aren't all taxes, taxes on households for things we may not want?
Maybe schools should just be funded by those with kids?
Doctors by those who are sick ?
Museums and art galleries by those who are interested?
Parks by those who want them?
Pice by those who want personal protection?
Who wants to go back to living like that?
Over many years our society decided that there were some things we were better off funding collectively for the greater good.
Good quality broadcasting was one of them.
Sky pap? Don't make me laugh.
"Hundreds of channels and nothing to watch"
The problem is, what is your definition of good quality broadcasting? I suspect for the vast majority of the public the documentary and right-on programs are nto what they want. Much as I too deplore them, trash tv is what many people crave for.
Gromit
//here would probably be a knock on effect on SKY as well. A lot of people would have to decide between one or the other instead of both. BBC or SKY? I know which I would sooner do without. //
I am pretty sure most people would opt for sky and that is the problem, they are forced to pay for the BBC tv only the minority want.
As for the Proms, I daresay SKY/Virgin or someone would soon pick it up. It might have ads for hairspray all over the stalls but I'm sure they would still do a good job.
Gromit
//here would probably be a knock on effect on SKY as well. A lot of people would have to decide between one or the other instead of both. BBC or SKY? I know which I would sooner do without. //
I am pretty sure most people would opt for sky and that is the problem, they are forced to pay for the BBC tv only the minority want.
As for the Proms, I daresay SKY/Virgin or someone would soon pick it up. It might have ads for hairspray all over the stalls but I'm sure they would still do a good job.
Ymb
Sorry to confuse
The bit in parentheses is an expression related to the views of Newton Minow
http://
Sorry to confuse
The bit in parentheses is an expression related to the views of Newton Minow
http://
I am happy enough with a licence fee arrangement, more or less as it is now, rather than turning the BBC into another commercial entity along the lines of ITV or whatever.
I do think the BBC need to bear down on administration costs and logistics and all of that though, to remove any suspicion that programme quality is being sacrificed for trendier HQs.
I do think the BBC need to bear down on administration costs and logistics and all of that though, to remove any suspicion that programme quality is being sacrificed for trendier HQs.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.