Is it time the licence fee was scrapped and a subscription introduced? - Discussion

No keep it but lower the price OR find some way to make it more accessible. Netflix and Amazon Prime is fine if you are younger and like to watch dozens of films, television series etc and then discuss it afterwards with friends and family, but to be honest the older generation don't want to watch something just because everyone is watching it - at least on the BBC you dip in and out and watch when you want OR catch up with iPlayer but to have to pay to watch and sometimes on Netflix you might not find anything worth seeing(especially if you're older) you want the BBC to show stuff they are world-renowned and respected for. The Tory Government have had it in for the BBC for years(I reckon it goes back to when a woman phoned Nationwide and confronted Mrs Thatcher about sinking the Belgrano ship in the Falklands War) and as two senior Tories said last week don't get into a fight with the BBC-perhaps they should heed that.

^Those who are most likely to watch the BBC are older middle class white individuals in the south i.e The Tory party's base. This is kind of like the dementia tax, obviously entertainment is not as serious an issue as social care nor are the cost and what you stand to lose anywhere as near, it's a policy that will hit their base hard.

I mean how big of a threat to this government can the BBC actually be when it just won an election on a stonking big majority?

(22-02-2020 02:50 )southsidestu Wrote:  Your child wants to see their hero's in the England national team at the World Cup, we all know where that will end up if the licence fee is scrapped, Sky. That means the family would have to pay the basic subscription rate plus the sports package to see it.

Not true. Coverage of the World Cup Finals is on a government protected list, meaning by law it must be shown on free-to-air terrestrial television. If there were no BBC, the tournament would have to be shown on ITV, Channel 4 or Five (ITV already show half the matches anyway).

(22-02-2020 12:06 )William H Bonney Wrote:  

(22-02-2020 02:50 )southsidestu Wrote:  Your child wants to see their hero's in the England national team at the World Cup, we all know where that will end up if the licence fee is scrapped, Sky. That means the family would have to pay the basic subscription rate plus the sports package to see it.

Not true. Coverage of the World Cup Finals is on a government protected list, meaning by law it must be shown on free-to-air terrestrial television. If there were no BBC, the tournament would have to be shown on ITV, Channel 4 or Five (ITV already show half the matches anyway).

So was the champions league

(22-02-2020 14:18 )southsidestu Wrote:  So was the champions league

Not true. The protected football events are the World Cup, the European Championship, the FA Cup Final and in Scotland only the Scottish Cup Final. There have never been any others and not the Champions League.

Yeah you are right it was the euros not the champions league that were given Category A protected status that was my mea culpa. However the England test matches were originally, lie the world cup, a category A event and they were negotiated to Category B and then exclusive rights were sold to Sky. Granted I was talking about sports and this is Cricket but it's still a live event. If Cricket can go from category A to B to Sky I don't see why the world cup could not either, granted it is a more popular event and would incur a large Backlash but when you have as big a majority as Boris you could probably take it on the chin

Regardless, whether the World Cup remains on terrestrial TV does not negate the rest of the argument I made. So I stand by it