QOTW: TV License or Netflix?

[johnroe]

It could be argued that it's the tv licence fee that's killing tv. It seems inconceivable that people are taxed to watch tv(and no you can't get away with claiming you boycott BBC on political or any other reasons). People have been imprisoned, continually harassed, and humiliated then fined, if they didn't pay their tv tax. It's starting to sound more Soviet institution era all the time, with it's own spying Stasi.

I wonder how much of the BBC's income is spent on innovative programmes. I bet it's only a small percentage, hence quality will always decline. Plus they censor everything, even films. So if people are forced to pay more for declining content, the outcome is obvious, the death of tv.

[Unique]

Well, if you read the "Read more" bit, that is effectively what it is asking. The article poihts out there other options, and multiple choices us an option, but asks specifically



Of course, some people would do neither, either because they don't want either, or because they want neither of these but do want something else. For some people, they don't have to pay for a TV licence to be covered, but wiukd have to pay for Netflix, Prime, etc.

Hence, a hypothetical question, IF you had to choose, which would you?

The qusstion seems fine to me, even if you'd ask a different question .... which, 8f course, you could.


Note: For the record, I have no input into these QOTWs, and find out about them when everybody else does, so this is my personal view, not some official HEXUS defence of the question.

but if you had to pick just one, as you don't need to pay a TV licence to watch tv, and netflix is cheaper than a tv license, unless someone wanted to pay more money or really wanted the bbc to get money, most people would pick netflix as then you can watch tv and netflix

if you don't pay for netflix and pay the tv license instead, you either miss what netflix has to offer or need to faff around with free trials. so paying more and getting less

that's why my alternate question seems more appropriate. personally i want both, but think the tv license is better value. i think netflix is great too, but it's better value if you have a few people sharing the account (ie. family members)

obviously not paying for a tv license and watching tv may be illegal, but so is illegal downloading and streaming of movies and tv shows and millions of people do that without caring. not that i'm suggesting anyone does something illegal

throw illegal downloading tv shows in the mix and many people may prefer watching shows that way, and many of them may happily pay say a £10 a month fee to be able to do it legitimately

[spacein_vader]

Netflix, without a doubt. It's cheaper; obscenely better value for money; it's infinitely more flexible and convenient; it's a voluntary arrangement; and it doesn't (significantly) fund the BBC, who's gone so far off the radical left deep end, I don't think there's any redeeming them. Netflix, at least, has to face the reality of the voluntary nature of their subscriptions and the viewership of their own content, otherwise they'll cease to exist. While the BBC can just blithely coast along doing pretty much whatever they want, and bully families and pensioners into coughing up a TV license, whether not they want to support the BBC.

I rarely watch TV full stop lately, so it'd definitely be netflix or similar.

(My viewing habits are youtube gaming channels mainly, with some anime and dvd/blu-rays)

We have a licence here because my mum watches a lot of TV, but if i had a place of my own i definitely wouldn't get a licence. Not only because i'm not that bothered by TV, but i'm sickened by the sheer naked pro-Tory bias of the BBC in recent years.

The only part left of any worth in the BBC IMHO is the nature documentaries, and i buy those on Blu-ray...

As long as there are plenty of those on the left and the right who think the been is biased against their own views I'm inclined to think it's broadly impartial overall even if individual presenters might not be.

Netflix - Greater content, often better quality and far, far better value. Don't really watch BBC content but need licence a licence for live TV viewing. BBC represents exceptionally poor value for money if the content was any good it would have value as a product and not need to be subsidized.

The poor value arguement surprises me. £145 a year pays* for:

BBC1
BBC2
BBC3
BBC4
BBC Parliament
BBC News Channel
BBC Alba
S4C
2 kids channels
5 national radio stations
3 national DAB stations
40+ local radio stations
The World Service
The website
iPlayer

Now I'm fully aware that nobody will use all of those, but even if you don't use any of them you'd struggle to argue the money doesn't pay for much.

*I know you don't need a licence to listen to the radio stations or use the website but it does still pay for them.

[emperoralku]

The poor value arguement surprises me.

The poor value argument is perfectly valid if you feel that 99% of the content contained on the channels you list is trash, as I do.

I stopped paying for and using all tv years ago. The fact that they attempt to force us to fund this service irks me.

In answer to the question, Netflix, without hesitation. I can watch what I want, when I want and not be bombarded with poor quality reruns for 95% of the day punctuated by some left wing propaganda 'news'.

If the license fee was abolished the BBC would die, very quickly. Which is why it is kept in place. It should be forced to stand on it's own feet.

[aidanjt]

As long as there are plenty of those on the left and the right who think the been is biased against their own views I'm inclined to think it's broadly impartial overall even if individual presenters might not be.

The BBC's past impartiality is long since dead. Their Brexit coverage didn't even try to hide their bias. Then there's the whole digital blackface nonsense. The whole gender paygap nonsense. And even their racist policy of refusing white applicants for their 'training' job positions. They're institutionally hard regressive left now. It's undeniable, and disturbing. And I say that as a moderate lefty, myself.

The poor value arguement surprises me. £145 a year pays* for...

That's nothing compared to the catalogue of shows and movies available to Netflix subscribers: https://usa.newonnetflix.info/catalog

If you add up the total hours of the media available on Netflix, compared to an even unreasonably generous 24 hour broadcasting of all the BBC channels and stations, and even adding up the combined total hours of all the content on iPlayer, for a month, the license fee still comes up objectively wayyyyyy too short. That's even before adding subjective opinions of the quality of content the BBC produces.

[jim]

I have Prime Video, but barely use it - the Grand Tour and Parks & Rec are the only things I have watched so far. There are a bunch of things that interest me to a degree, but I've never had so much spare time that I've wanted to delve through the archives.

So would I pay for Netflix? No.

I currently do pay for the TV license, but that's really because my wife enjoys a few BBC dramas and we will watch Strictly together every year. Personally, I could drop it in an instant and it wouldn't bother me at all.

So personally, would I pay for a TV license? No.

If I had to pick, I'd probably pay for the TV license since some of it goes towards the BBC website and news which I use extensively. But if it was up to me the answer would be neither.

[johnroe]

The BBC's past impartiality is long since dead. Their Brexit coverage didn't even try to hide their bias. Then there's the whole digital blackface nonsense. The whole gender paygap nonsense. And even their racist policy of refusing white applicants for their 'training' job positions. They're institutionally hard regressive left now. It's undeniable, and disturbing. And I say that as a moderate lefty, myself.

It's interesting how this whole FB/CA and linked companies scandal about targeted propaganda has been stirred up by the Observer newspaper. But the BBC spends £139,000 on the Guardian newspaper for it's employees PY. How direct can targeted propaganda be. I think media companies should be as neutral politically as possible, because of their ability to have major influence over this country.

Their politics is what is indoctrinated into students until they leave uni. And that's fine, idealistic students, but you expect the ideology to be moderated by reality, especially in middle aged adults. I think that's why I resent the BBC. It represents a fake middle England, middle class nostalgia fest.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was interested to see if it was true the BBC was actually discriminating against people:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom...ision-industry

Thats is what I saw on the Ofcom website.

Ofcom’s Diversity and equal opportunities in television report is based on anonymised data for nearly 50,000 staff working at 347 UK broadcasters. This is separate to Diamond, an industry-wide monitoring system which aims to capture diversity data on people working on or off-screen on all UK-originated productions. See more information on Diamond.
Across the UK television industry as a whole, women account for 48% of employees, versus 51% of the wider population.
Male employees comprise 63% of Board and non-executive employees, and 59% of senior management across the UK-based industry as a whole.
The proportion of employees from a minority background across the UK television industry as a whole is 11%, versus 14% of the population. Ethnic-minority representation is similar within programming roles (11%) and commissioning jobs (13%).
Across the UK television industry as a whole, people from an ethnic minority background only make up 9% of Board and non-executive level positions, and 8% of senior-management.

This table shows how the main five broadcasters compare:

Viacom is US based. Channel 4 is public owned,and used to be government funded but is self funded. Both have higher than 15% ethnic minorities employed which is above the BBC.

Channel 4,ITV and Viacom has more women than men,and ITV and Viacom have significantly higher percentages of women in senior roles than the BBC.

I suppose other private broadcasters seem to be more discriminatory depending on what the criterion is. The BBC look more middle of the road. Figures!!

[Output]

Channel 4 is public owned,and used to be government funded but is self funded.

I thought Channel 4 still gets a portion of the TV license?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I thought Channel 4 still gets a portion of the TV license?

AFAIK outside a loan they got from the government in 2007 I don't think they do - I could be wrong as I don't purport to be an expert on how the media is funded TBF!

[Output]

AFAIK outside a loan they got from the government in 2007 I don't think they do - I could be wrong as I don't purport to be an expert on how the media is funded TBF!

I can't say I have any idea myself, it was just a general feeling that I thought that some was still going to them, hence why I asked. It's possible that the feeling was based on something I read years ago before any change may have been though.

[scaryjim]

Given I'm managing perfectly well without either of them ... neither! I was considering a NowTV subscription over the summer for test match cricket, but since I'd need to also pay for a TV License to do that, it simply isn't worth it to me. I'll have to do it the sociable way and go watch the cricket in a handy pub

[philehidiot]

Discrimination by the BBC does happen. There are some jobs which have been unavailable to white people. These aren't acting jobs where you require someone of a certain appearance to fit the role but "positive discrimination" for intern jobs, etc.

To me this is bad on three fronts:
1) It gives credibility to far right groups who are obsessed about us being overrun by immigrants who are getting priority over the "native" population (NOT my view, just repeating).
2) It says to black / ethnic minorities "you can't compete on the same level with white people and so we need to give you an advantage". What a way to make someone mentally weak. Tell them they're just as good as everyone else, that the jobs are open to them just like everyone else and that everyone will be considered together. All they have to do is set a goal and really work towards it. Maybe even go so far as to say they'll annonymise applications so there are no names or demographics on there. REMOVE race and sex as an issue so it can't be one. I always put a giant line through any demographic stuff on an application - they do not need to know anything about my race, sex or sexual orientation and if they make an issue of it I'll say I'm a mixed race hermaphrodite with a panchent for tenticle porn. I don't want to work for any company that makes an issue out of these things. Race, sex and sexual orientation have nothing to do with how good you are at your job and aren't matters for your employer to even consider.
3) Anyone who has listened to MLK's famous speech knows that he wanted people to be judged "not on the colour of their skin but on the content of their character" (sorry if the quote is slightly wrong, it's from memory). This completely goes against this basic principle of the civil rights movement.

[nar53]

We rarely watch TV but when we do we use FeeSat. As British ex pats in France we have a French TV licence but we don't watch French TV and we don't even have an Aerial.

[rich835]

If it was up to me, I would cancel my license. Netflix is far better value for what I want.
Unfortunately, the wife requires a license for Eastenders.

If the beeb gave me better value for their other services, I wouldn't complain, but it seems to be whittled down on a regular basis. Examples are, scrapping the traffic & travel site, and scrapping a stack of cooking recipies. Local beeb radio has too much emphasis on local football now, of which I also have no interest.

The license fee is very bad value for my personal needs.

[virtuo]

Haven't paid a TV license since I bought my house, 10 years ago. Haven't had a legitimate reason to have one either.

I have a very large library of BluRays and DVDs, and we pay for Netflix/Prime. When I've been at someone house who is watching the BBC, well last time was Christmas and I had to put up with Mrs Browns boys.

They should be paying me to watch that garbage.



To be fair, the Beeb do put out some great nature documentaries, but I still prefer to buy them on UHD Bluray, so they get paid for exactly what I'm interested in that way.