I understand the 'young uns'. It's a good argument.
As I wrote previously, this is an impending apocalypse, one that we, The UK, must solve.
It wasn't so much of a thing when the current flavour of party took power in 2010, but its grown in scale in the last 10 years, and now resembles an elephant.
I work in the sector, and I don't know what the answer is. Either Im not clever enough, or I can not imagine a suitable framework in which to continue to gather money to fund The BBC.
Which also happens with subscription providers.
Do I subscribe to Apple TV, Netflix, Amazon or Sky?
Subscribe to one and you're financing all the other stuff you have no interest in, and you can't watch the content thats on the other one.
Two things you will just NOT find on any SVoD platform are news and weather.
Netflix local news anyone?
SVoDs have no interest in this what so ever, because it costs too much money. Its out of date the moment you put it out, and therefore financially unviable. Yet no-one ever critiques FAANG for this lack of service.
OU broadcasts got squeezed out. They were uncool. The corporation had more content to show on Sunday morning. The OU became an actual place. And now it can be done online.
I think there may have been a shift in policy (from Whitehall) regarding transmission of educational content for schools. ITV also used to do a lot. Now they do none. But no-one scrutinises what ITV do.
Thing to remember is, The BBC is a state broadcaster. Its the broadcaster for our, utterly bonkers, state. All of the other dictatorships have one!
Also what few understand, is The BBC has to apply for the charter renewal every few years.
It has to renew the contract to be the state broadcaster.
If The BBC lost the charter, someone else would get it
There will always be a state broadcaster.
If it wasn't The BBC, it would be someone else.
The matter of there being a state broadcaster is just one of those things in the bedrock of what we do in the UK.
Like driving on the left. No-one else in the northern hemisphere does it! So why do we continue. Sweden switched from the left to the right, so we don't we?
Because we're British, its what we do.
Successive governments do. Just so they can look like they're doing something about it.
Matt Hancock being the one who meddled with it most in recent years and made the biggest threats against the existence of The BBC.
Capita, I believe, got the contract in the early 2000s.
That they write to you even though you have notified them, its just guff so they can include in their report to Whitehall that "We have served notice on x.xx million people."
It is absolutely not a lie.
They have served notice, but they've ignored what they already have on record to do so.
And that presents an image to Whitehall that everyone is at it, and that Capita is doing such a good job in chasing all of these criminals.
....its a Jedi mind trick on the weak minded..... Whitehall!
Capita, doing such a good job for the money, get the contract renewed.
But as I wrote previously, no-one else notices the Capita bit.
They just know the licence fee is for The BBC, and therefore its The BBC that are sending me these letters demanding money. Once again, The BBC receives what Tracey Pritchard (W1A) would call "heavy incoming".
In a case of life immittating art immittating life, BBC Local radio ran a series in 2018, called BBC Me !!
That very instruction came from Whitehall.
I can't remember when but there was a big debate/fuss (in the House of Commons) about geo-blocking iPlayer.
It was known that a lot of iPlayer traffic was coming from outside the UK.... and therefore costing money.
The question of whether we block out Jonny Foreigner or not went all the way to the top.
Yes, came back the reply, eventually. And whilst you're at it drive people to sign up.
.....which is why The BBC Sport app now requests you sign in.... every time you open it.
The BBC, just like every other web service you sign up to, do also make use of the information they have about you, and use that to tailor the content they show you.
BUT, unlike others, they do not share this information with any other parties at all. They also went to great efforts to ensure the "you might also like" links did not, like youtube, become an echo chamber.
i.e. If you like watching wildebeests getting mauled, making sure you don't get an endless list of more and more grotesque videos of hardcore carnivorous action!
Right wing activists will not be presented with more links of right wing activism..... because The BBC has to present a balanced view of the world.... because UK journalism must be impartial.... because Parliament dictates so.
There's also live sport content on the web platform, which you might be watching outside of the UK.
So if you sign up, and authenticate yourself, you're in.
Of course, the next step would be to require you to enter your licence number before you're permitted to view any online BBC content. But thats going a bit too far.
Once again, these changes, instructed by Whitehall, make things a little more challenging, but all Joe Public sees is "its The BBC, AGAIN". Again, The BBC gets the negative press.
Essentially, it's just ring fencing their content, just like an SVoD.
As I wrote previously, how do we fund the state broadcaster?
It can't do all of this stuff for nothing, we need to pay for it somehow.
And thats the problem that faces this, and successive governments.
And look at what you started!!
Having said everything above, I don't sign in to the BBC News website, but I don't get any pop-ups like that.... except after Ive cleared cookies.
Do you have Firefox set to clear cookies after a short period?
Do you have CCleaner installed with all the automatic periodic clean up?
Where does your IP trace back to?
Is that in a private browser?
Did you land on that page from a link on an aggregator site?
Just click "Maybe later".