Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35761664)

Maybe a small per property charge for the basic PSBR requirement ( Saturday evening ratings battles and deadenders Eastenders is not PSBR ) and radio with the rest of the froth subscription only.

To just charge everybody no matter how little the BBC output is relevent to them is still a non-starter in my view as it's no different to now.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761665)

The thing is, there is a very vocal minority that don't want to pay anything to the BBC because they don't watch or listen to their programmes. I think the Government need to listen to them.

Enabling the public to subscribe or not subscribe will probably result in most people signing up in the end, and all the stressing about BBC funding will be gone overnight.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761649)

Interestingly, they are suggesting a possible levy payable by everyone to entitle them to receive any broadcast.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761665)

The thing is, there is a very vocal minority that don't want to pay anything to the BBC because they don't watch or listen to their programmes. I think the Government need to listen to them.

.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761649)

This is the latest on the BBC licence fee, confirming that its continuation is time limited, but that there may be a temporary reprieve. I think, however, this depends on what shape the next Government takes.

Although there are potentially different solutions to the replacement of the licence fee, I do believe that the preferred answer is likely to lie in a subscription based offer. Further savings would result from reducing or abolishing broadcast TV, in favour of VOD and streaming.

Interestingly, they are suggesting a possible levy payable by everyone to entitle them to receive any broadcast rather than a subscription. This will not satisfy those who resent paying the licence fee, which is why I think a Government of a certain complexion won't like that idea.

I know that withdrawing broadcast TV won't please everyone, but I am pretty sure this is the way we are going. The only question for me is how long it will take to get there. Notice that the Committee is talking also about a 10 year period, which I think is do-able if extended to withdrawing broadcast TV. However, my guess is that a 20 year period is more likely politically, given the need to win the public over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659

No long-term future for BBC licence fee, MPs say

The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said.

The fee is "becoming harder and harder to justify" given changes in the media, according to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead.

The BBC said it agreed the licence fee needed to be modernised.

The select committee's proposals were made in a new report about the future of the BBC.

Catch-up changes

Committee chairman John Whittingdale said: "In the short term, there appears to be no realistic alternative to the licence fee, but that model is becoming harder and harder to justify and sustain."

In light of changing technology and audience habits, the committee said "we do not see a long-term future for the licence fee in its current form".

Any "profound changes" - such as abolishing the licence fee - should not be rushed, the report said. But it did say the BBC "must prepare for the possibility of a change in the 2020s.

"We recommend that as a minimum the licence fee must be amended to cover catch-up television as soon as possible."

It should also no longer be a criminal offence to avoid paying the licence fee, the report said.

The planned BBC One +1 channel does not represent "public service value", the committee said.

The licence fee currently costs £145.50 per year for every household where people watch or record live TV.

A TV licence is not required to watch catch-up TV, using services such as the BBC iPlayer.

One option to replace the licence fee would be to make some BBC services available by subscription.

But the committee said choosing which programmes remained available subscription-free would require careful thought.

The best alternative to the licence fee, the report concluded, would be a compulsory broadcasting levy paid by all households, regardless of whether they watch TV, or how they watch.

The BBC's director of strategy James Purnell, said it was "a very serious and important report".

He said: "They are saying the licence fee should continue for the next years and think the BBC should continue for the next 10 years when its comes up for charter renewal after the election.

"We actually agree with them that the licence fee should be modernised. We have said this should extend to catch-up services, when people are watching catch-up for example on their tablets.

"They have come up with a more radical solution with a broadcast levy where every household would pay."

Such a system was introduced in Germany in 2013 and would do away with the need to detect and prosecute those who avoid buying a TV licence, the committee said.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35761701)

Seriously OB, I read this report as saying subscription based programmes will prove problematic and that the other option is to charge everyone in the country. They also say that a new levy may be introduced but will called something different. I seem to recall some tax in the 80s changing its name to council tax, and it not changing a thing, we still pay the same tax. So why should this be any different? Rest assured very little will change. Like PB says, the bbc will need to tighten their belts. I can see people paying a little less a year, but everyone in the country having to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35761732)

Including those that don't have a tv :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761659)

Yes! Well it is simple, just tack the charge on to the council tax!

Common sense points to a subscription based model that people can choose to sign up to but common sense does not always win the day, regrettably!

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35761701)

Seriously OB, I read this report as saying subscription based programmes will prove problematic and that the other option is to charge everyone in the country. They also say that a new levy may be introduced but will called something different. I seem to recall some tax in the 80s changing its name to council tax, and it not changing a thing, we still pay the same tax. So why should this be any different? Rest assured very little will change. Like PB says, the bbc will need to tighten their belts. I can see people paying a little less a year, but everyone in the country having to pay for it.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35761675)

This really makes me laugh. The case put by many against the licence fee, is that they don't use any BBC services, so shouldn't have to pay. People who don't have equipment with tuners in currently can opt out.

This levy will force everyone to pay, whether they don't have tuners or don't use BBC services.


My general thoughts though; the BBC is one of the most respected broadcasters in the world at a bargain monthly fee, and a bunch of people, all of whom, can easily afford pay TV services want to mess with it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't monitor BBC spending. Rupert must be doing a dance right now.

---------- Post added at 15:08 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------



And the key word here is minority.


BTW OB, when are you going to give us the statistics for those who object to the licence fee?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35761794)

That is exactly what will happen, not at the next charter review, but probably at the one after.

The theory is that TV has an important social function above and beyond the provision of entertainment. That is the justification for funding a large chunk of it via what is, effectively, a tax.

Throughout this thread you have argued that the Internet will result in the end of linear broadcast TV. I maintain that you are wrong; linear broadcast is simple for the provider and the consumer and remains the best means of attracting a mass audience.

What the Internet will do, however, is make it increasingly difficult for the BBC to continue to collect sufficient licence fees on the basis of charging people who watch TV as broadcast, not because too few people are watching linear broadcast, but because it is becoming too easy to evade detection. The only viable alternative, if the public service broadcast model is to be preserved, is for a precept on local tax. This is how police and fire authorities collect their funds.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761799)

But Chris, we all rely on the police and fire authorities. We don't all watch or listen to BBC output, and so the licence fee or any kind of universal tax is manifestly unfair.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761795)

the TV licence, which many do think is too high

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35761807)

If you never have children, you will never make use of the schools you pay for. However there is a wider social need for schools, which benefits you indirectly. Likewise you pay for the fire authority not because you use it, but because one day you might do. It is, howevever, far more likely that you never will.

The BBC is a guarantor of breadth of programming, quality of programming, and universal availability of programming. You may never personally tune in to any of its services, but the very fact of its existence sets parameters for the UK TV industry, which you benefit from.

If you think this is nonsense, spend some time watching TV in the USA. What we get here is, I promise you, a highly distilled and very small sample of it's output, most of which is shockingly bad.

.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35761813)

I also agree that many people won't like a move to subscription tv, but there is no reason why they need to pay any more than they do now for the licence fee if this is abolished.