Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The BBC gets its freedom, which will enable it to generate more income. People have the choice of whether or not to subscribe to the BBC. Taxpayers pay much less to supporting the broadcast industry and for public service provision.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

You said I asked "what changes", and your reply doesn't match your first statement.

Where is your evidence that the public want the BBC to change its funding model, as this is what you are saying the public wants?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Your wild claims that the public wants change and will soon come to expect it does not stand up to any scrutiny at all OB..

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...m-regulate-bbc

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Sorry, but your reply was too brief to be clear about the question you were asking.

I was specifically referring to the Ofcom decision not to allow the BBC to keep more shows on the i-Player for more than 30 days.There appears to be public demand for that, but Ofcom are concerned about the implications of that in terms of unfair competition. That would not be a problem if the BBC could operate more as a commercial company.

We might get a lot less political correctness as well if the BBC were not controlled so much by government.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------

Of course the public want change. They want an i-Player that competes with the internet, and that is also what the BBC is striving for.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018...-34-year-olds/

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So what it actually comes down to is your usual hobby horse .... the apparently imminent replacement of broadcast TV with on demand streaming services.

Ofcom is using regulations to force the BBC to lag behind commercial rivals, to prevent it using its massive financial muscle to dictate the whole marketplace, and as a result streaming services are developing more slowly in the U.K. than you would like.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

No, I used that as an example, although the reason I selected something that I care about is irrelevant. It's what the BBC need to do if it is to keep up. The Corporation has looked into the future and can see its own demise if it does not adapt auickly in the rapidly changing world of the media.

Contrary to what you and some others appear to think, I don't want the BBC to sink without trace. I want it to compete on equal terms with other platforms and I want the Beeb to be able to show off its wares to the world and make more money that way. The BBC is working within an outdated regulatory system, which needs to be brought into the current century. By subsidising the BBC, we are at the same time constraining its ability to perform and thrive.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

But we aren’t subsidising the BBC. We are actually paying for it. The corporation’s revenue is something like £4bn a year and (from memory) only around 10% of that comes from commercial activity (though £400m revenue from mostly international activities is no small beer). Only the big US media corporations have more money to play with. The UK marketplace isn’t big enough to generate that much commercial revenue for any media business. The BBC simply isn’t going to get bigger or better operating on commercial terms because its domestic market can’t sustain it.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I think you are playing with words. The BBC is benefiting from receiving income from people who might otherwise choose not to pay it. This is why ITV, Sky and others think it is so unfair.

You seem to believe that if the UK population was seemlessly transferred to a subscription instead of paying the licence fee, hordes of people would choose to then ditch that subscription. I disagree profoundly - the vast majority would go for the status quo and would continue to pay. Any shortfall of income by this method could be made up and even exceeded through maximisation of revenues through a beefed up BBC i-Player made available worldwide by subscription and perhaps even with advertising options, and by being able to involve itself in other commercial activities which the government scale back under the present system. Your 10% figure is what the Beeb is earning now, even with the restrictions placed upon it. There is ample scope to grow that figure with the freedoms that a subscription model would provide.

I think you are under-valuing the BBC's potential massively, and I say again, it is unreasonable to foist the payment of non-essential services on people who do not want them.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There are no restrictions on BBC Worldwide or BBC Studios, except that they are forbidden to use licence fee money to fund commercial projects. They are self sustaining and they return cash to the mothership to supplement the licence fee income. What other restrictions on the BBC’s commercial activities are you aware of that I’m missing?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Ofcom has been the reason why Project Kangaroo was abandoned and it continues to stymie efforts by the BBC to behave in a more commercial manner.

You dismiss on demand programming as being 'my obsession', but it's the way of the future. Anyone can see this. You can find references to it almost anywhere you look. The latest article I have read is here:

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018...ming-services/

If the BBC was allowed to join with ITV and Channel 4 to set up an internet site along Netflix lines, it could make a lot of money out of it. Amazon spend about £5.5bn on content. The BBC could spend more of its £5.14 bn on content if it was given the freedom to do so. It currently spends only £2.7bn on content, which is abysmal, but due largely to government interference. Even with present levels of spending on content, if ITV and Channel 4 spend was added, imagine how attractive such a site would be globally. You are quite wrong when you say that the BBC cannot compete against global players like Amazon. Only the government is holding them back.

That alone is one good reason why the BBC should no longer be tied to politicians through the licence fee system.

It is not the only reason, of course. For example, its BBC Worldwide operations were cut back not long ago and you will be aware that the BBC was told it had to let other channels benefit from being able to take over its popular shows. Interference such as this is debilitating for any operation. Politicians need to give the Beeb its freedom and just butt out.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Well well, turns out the t.v. licence is the most hated of bills according to a radio report I heard last night, can't say I'm surprised.

I've done away with my telly, I'm getting threatening letters and all kinds of bs from those licencing parasites, they've been round a few times and should I find myself unfortunate enough to encounter them face to face I'm wondering if I'm obliged to give them any personal details, I'm okay with them snooping round the old drum but I don't want to give them any personal information if I can help it, obviously they have none at the moment, their letters and little cards are addressed to the legal occupier.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

They have no more authority than a double glazing salesman. You are not obliged to give them any details or allow entry to your property.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Don't give them any personal details. Only if they have your name can they take you to court.

Also you don't have to great them entry.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

My pal was cleaning his guns a few years back when they knocked, he refused them entry so they ran of and got a police officer, who he allowed entry whilst leaving said parasites on the door step, the police officer agreed with my friend and told them to sling their hooks as he had good reason for refusing entry, incidentally he didn't have a tv either

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

I have nothing to fear, I'm not going out of my way to let them in though, it it happens our paths cross in the garden I'm okay granting access but they're not getting anything else

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Unless you explicitly with draw it anybody (like the postie, meter reader etc) has a right to approach your front door by the path that you provide. They have no right to deviate from that path and if you state, in writing, that they may not pass the boundary of your property they commit an offence if they do.

You can also withdraw that right on the spot and they are then obliged to leave immediately. That was the right the police officer was enforcing for your friend.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

They don't care if you've got rid of your TV, they won't believe you until they see proof. They will still come after you for your PC/laptop/tablet/mobile phone or anything else you're able to view live content on.

The threatening letters won't stop either, until you call them and tell them that you don't need a licence, but then they will have your details to send you threatening letters in the future. And they will tell you that they may send someone round to verify this.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Many many years ago when I became single again (lol) I got rid of the TV, but then started receiving letters threatening and pleading etc etc.

In the end I wrote saying that: I was from a planet with an unpronounceable (to you) name in a Galaxy you could only just see.
I was here as part of an advanced scout mission to decide whether Earth and its inhabitants were worthy of co-operating with, or destroying. From my learnings over the past 6 months, I strongly suggest that a missing TV license is the least of your worries.

I never heard from them again :D

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Even the commercial channels don't want advertising on the BBC as it would hit their income; there simply isn't enough to go round. This has become even more so as young people abandon TV in favour of the internet and, subsequently, advertising aimed at them is switched to the the net.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Exactly!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I see no reasonable alternative to the TV Licence model.

The BBC is the equivalent of a TV backstop. With a little less anti-Brexit bias, they provide a good news service, uninterrupted by adverts. The provide good drama and music and I watch the BBC more than other channels (except perhaps Movies for Men when it's WW2).

Given that the Licence is the law, all that has to be done is for BBC to manage expenditure properly.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I have no doubt that BBC1,2 and 4 and the news and children's channels will continue to be free.

However, I do think it likely that the successor to 'Project Kangeroo' will be available both by subscription and free with commercials. How else would this new streaming service make money for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

That necessity for a mix of commercial and non-commercial content was the reason ofcom killed it first time round.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I do believe that advertisers will shift away from the traditional channels, and the main broadcasters like ITV and Channel 4 will team up with the BBC's new 'Netflix-style' app, which will be financed by a mix of advertising and subscriptions. BBC programmes will continue to be free with no advertisements on both the free and subscription versions while the licence fee continues to exist.

The public service broadcast funding should be allocated differently if the licence fee is abolished and instead allocated directly to whichever channels took up the government's requirement to make particular types of programme (such as local news programming and public information programmes). Public broadcasting services do not have to be ditched just because there is a different method of making content available and this does not have to be the sole province of the BBC.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Still waffling on about the licence fee OB? Must be bigger things to worry about surely ?

How much did you pay VM last year (for mostly repeats), and how much did you pay the BBC (for mostly original content) ?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

First of all, where do you get the idea that the Beeb broadcast mainly original content? The BBC are well renowned for their repeats, particularly during the summer.

As far as VM is concerned, you will no doubt recall that I have also railed against the amount of rubbish on the pay-tv channels. I'd much prefer to pay less for a skinny bundle of watchable channels than pay through the nose for all the rubbish channels I never watch. I'd be happy with just the HD channels plus BBC1 SD (for the regional programming) together with the Virgin Exclusives and Sky on demand.

So I'm not sure why you are comparing the two. Both need to improve, in my opinion.

The licence fee is actually quite a different issue. The current system is preventing the BBC from innovating and forcing them to gift their best shows to other broadcasters.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Now, now I think you are being unkind.

The licence fee skews the market. Just think of how lucrative streaming would be if 26 million households had an extra £12 a month in their pocket. Such innovative companies as Starzplay and Eleven Sports could gain a foothold in the market.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Yes still waffling about the bill people hate paying most, that's saying something if council tax is included and he has a choice about paying virgin media to.

Mostly original content, do you even watch the channel you defend so much, last year the telegraph reported a rise in peak time repeats on the flagship channel of 65%, 65% repeats between 18:00- 22:30, what's it like the rest of the time and on their other channels the ones no one watches

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The Torygraph, well we know how they love the Beeb !
The best Dramas during the last been on the BBC, the Bodyguard, Les Miserables, Killing Eve. Quality not quantity. Yes they've had to scale back because of the Govts. constant attacks and having to fund licences for the crinklies. It'll 100% repeats and adverts if you want it free.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

It's already repeats and your plan suits me, never watched the channel anyway or like most other people any of their other channels either

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

You are right about the dramas, but we were talking about the heavy reliance on repeats.

I notice you are taking the view that it's all the government's fault. Well, abolition of the licence fee and introduction of voluntary subscriptions would put paid to that, wouldn't it?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Here are the latest BBC licence fee receipts and expenditure.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/ta...s-expenditure/

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

IIt's a public service broadcaster, which you can't seem to get your head around. It's output is different from other broadcasters, as it isn't a slave to ratings and advertiser's. It makes programmes others don't as they aren't profitable. All that glitters isn't subscription TV.
Yes I'd wish there weren't repeats but unless you really want to pay a lot more £12 a month that's the way it is.

Tbh I'd wish it went off air in the daytime (like the good old days !), rather than all the property/antique programmes, and didn't do stuff like Strictly. But some people like them and it has to cater for all tastes as the licence fee is universal.

---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 ----------

Can't be repeats if you don't watch them Mr Daddy ;)

They are maybe not to your taste, but they are the most watched channels with 4 times the audience share of Sky.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...udience-share/

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The clue in tv guide is the R in the listing, not to mention the aforementioned report saying 65% of their flagship channels prime time content was repeats. Really BBC parliament is one of the most watched channels and I seem to remember the blue Peter repeat on the kids channel got a zero audience rating recently, literally no one watched it, sky must be bricking it with those sort of numbers

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Is BBC Parliament really one of the most watched channels? BARB data seems to show a 0.5% reach while the other BBC channels have;

BBC1 68.9%
BBC2 44.6%
BBC4 12.7%
BBC News 9.5%
CBeebies 7.3%
CBBC 3.9%

(Source, page 63 of annual report http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/abouttheb...ort_201718.pdf)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

TV licence fee HIKED: BBC confirms ANOTHER rise in price to watch favourite TV shows
BRITONS will face a hike in the price they pay to watch the BBC, with the cost of a TV licence rising from April 1.


The BBC has confirmed the cost of the licence will rise from £150.50 to £154.50. The increase is see the cost of watching favourite TV programmes rise for a third year in a row. In 2016 a TV licence cost £145.50.



https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...-tv-april-2019

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So just an inflationary rise then ...

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

You would have thought the world had ended.;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Maybe if you sell the boat you might just cope ? ;)

The fee was frozen between for 6 years from 2010, so we've been getting very good vfm. If only VM did the same....

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

It's difficult in these economic times to find someone with enough wonga to invest in a boat with 5 berths in 3 separate cabins with tv,a fitted kitchen and shower/toilet compartment,separate wheel house ,and out side seating area,but then again it's not for sale ;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

TV in the boat ? You might need another licence for that :)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I hope you hosed the cabins out afterwards... ;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Berths -oops ;)

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

Do they have TV detector boats? ;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

l am sending one out now so you better start hiding..;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

No it's not, it's one of the channels no one watches but for some bizarre reason Mr K was saying they're the most watched channels with 4 times the viewers of sky

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Yup...

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Er, I do know what a public service broadcaster is, Mr K. However, it is a very old fashioned innovation and it's about time the concept was thoroughly reviewed.

You and other naysayers keep on saying that the cost of a subscription would be more than the cost of a TV licence. I disagree. The freedom the Beeb would gain from breaking away from government control (including not having to fund free licences for the elderly) would make up for the slightly smaller number taking up the subscription.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Why? as it ain't broke you don't need to fix it.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Because some people are paying for a broadcasting service they don't use, because there is too much waste in the public service BBC, because the Beeb could be free to innovate and make more services available to viewers (such as a Netflix-type service and make more money to boot, because....

Wait a minute, haven't we been through all this before? So how can you say with a straight face that it ain't broke?
At least, I assume you have a straight face! :D.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Well 150 posts on from your OP, and you seem to be rather going round in circles ! Tell the BBC/ Govt. about your innovative ideas, don't think they read CF.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There is nothing broke about the TV license and the BBC apart from yourself who keeps deluding himself that there is a better model out there that will be cheaper when it will be nothing of the sort..

---------- Post added at 18:08 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

They don't call me poker face for nothing.;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The last thorough review began in 2015 and led to the charter renewal of 2017. That charter expires in 2028 so it’s likely the next thorough review will commence in about 2026.

Every time the BBC’s charter has been renewed over almost 100 years (each charter lasting around 10-15 years) its remit has been reviewed and revised.

I get that your opinion is that public service broadcasting - most especially as performed by the BBC - is an old fashioned idea, but it is an idea that has been thoroughly reviewed and renewed eight times since the first one was issued in 1927. So yours is not an opinion that has any significant traction among the experts whose job it is to investigate these things, even though I have no doubt they receive submissions similar to your opinion on each occasion.

Slightly smaller number, hmm? What is this number? And what is your source?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

As I said, old fashioned. There comes a point when sticking plaster is just not going to work any more.

As for my source...nobody who disagrees with my point of view ever provides a source to back up their views, so why should I? I've provided a link to many of my arguments over time but the same guys just carry on ignoring them and protesting the opposite.

Strange, that.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Something that is regularly reviewed and updated to take account of current circumstances before being allowed to continue is by definition not old fashioned. Much the same way as a suit bought last week from Marks and Spencer’s Spring 2019 collection isn’t old fashioned, just because they’ve been selling suits for over a century.

From the rest of your post I deduce that you cannot cite any research that backs up your assertion that switching the BBC to a subscription funding model would result in only a slightly smaller number of subscribers compared to licence fee payers.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

If you say so, Chris.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Ah the old bias thing, your left is somebody elses right... They can never win on that one.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Don't leave out the leftie brexit hating politics live fiasco.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

l agree with most of what you say :tu: but lets keep the politics out of this thread.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

That's difficult when they have a clear political bias.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

BBC can never win no matter what they say Mr K.

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

So if it does not suit your own personal political agenda it must be bias against your own beliefs.


There are guidelines which all BBC news output has to adhere to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguide...s/impartiality

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguide...factual-output

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

If anything, I'd honestly say it's the other way, so maybe they are getting it right. (Andrew Neil has worked for the Cnservative party, and their coverage of Corbyn has hardly been balanced)

Who would you call unbiased ? Your beloved Express, Fox news??

There is certainly an element of the Govts. of the day threatening BBC funding unless they are 'nice' to them. All Govts. hate media outlets they can't control/ influence.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

It's a point of view, there are others, which should be heard. I think you and many others want a broadcaster that only reflects your views.

The Govt. has done nothing less than try to bully the BBC since 2010, with the threat of hitting funding if they don't comply. It'lll be a sad day if they submit and we don't have independent reporting any longer.

Getting back to funding, freezing the licence fee for 6 years has led to more repeats and the loss of BBC3. As with everything else pay less, get less. Blame HM Govt., not the BBC.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Strange how, if the BBC is "anti-Brexit", it is often labelled "the Brexit Broadcasting Service" on lots of Leaver social media, and on websites like "Order-Order", which are very pro-Brexit.

Seems to be in the eyes of the beholder...

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.:nono:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Mmmm - wonder how it manages to be both?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Thank you, Jimmy. Unfortunately, all the evidence in the world will not shake Chris and jfman from their infathomable beliefs that our future world will not look rather different from today.

Digital technology is moving at such a speed that a lot of people find it difficult to keep up. That's fair enough, but to keep challenging the clear trends that are happening and have been evidenced without any facts to support the challenge is tiresome and futile. In my humble opinion. :shrug:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Err ... I asked you to cite your source for the evidence that switching from a licence to a subscription would result in only a small reduction in payers. The item from the Daily Wail - aside from having all the academic credentials of a public urinal - addresses a different issue entirely. So stop pretending we don’t all know you’re just making stuff up and try harder.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The same article, but in the Times - they had a line the Fail missed out.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/v...hold-fj3lfgk9c

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Funnily enough, the Wail article does eventually admit to the fact that the high number of cancellations is in large part due to house moves and singletons getting married and moving in together. The number they quoted is an absolute number of cancellations, not a reduction in the overall total. The only useful thing you can do with the figure the Mail has quoted is use it alongside the figure for new licence fee payers to arrive at the total number of TV licences held. Oddly the Mail hasn’t done so. Can’t think why.

But frankly it’s a waste of pixels pointing this out to OB because it’s facts and evidence, which he wouldn’t understand if it came accompanied with a copy of Facts And Evidence For Dummies.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The BBC,in my opinion, is stuck in the past and the license fee is likewise. It must be scrapped and forced into a subscription service. People argue that it would cost too much and the quality of programs would suffer. I disagree. The money raised through subs plus advertising revenue would provide more than enough for them to make or buy good programs. Also,if they stopped paying the likes of Gary Lineker silly money for jobs that anyone could do they'd save a hell of a lot of money.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

If you have any clear evidenced trends I’d certainly like to read them.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

:rofl:

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------

Which underlines the point that the BBC is actually doing the job it is supposed to when all sides accuse it of bias.:D

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

You noticed that as well!

Nigel Farage appeared 32 times since 2000, and UKIP appeared in 24% of the QT shows in 7 years, despite never having more than 2 MPs, and there hasn’t been a pro-EU MEP on QT since 2002.

Definite bias...

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Totally disagree with you. Why can't the BBC compete with all other TV channels? All the other commercial channels manage alright. If the BBC is so good then people will flock to sub to then. On the other hand if they are as crap as I believe they are they will sink without trace! I can count on one hand how many programs I watch.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

ITV, Channel 4 and Five don’t take subscriptions. Why should the BBC?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

No reason why they should IF they think they can survive on adverts only!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

In the beginning advertising space could be sold at a premium on BBC.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

ITV would be near destroyed if the BBC took adverts....

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I don't know where you get that from! Advertisers will want to be on both channels equally.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

If you want to advertise to the kind of ratings ITV get there’s one place to go. Another supplier entering the market (BBC) drives down the price of advertising.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

An (alleged} prestigious channel can cater for prestigious companies at a premium.

IIRC many years ago when there were only 4 channels and it was muted the BBC could advertise for its revenue the answer was "There isn't enough advertising revenue". Now look at the amount of channels and the advertising revenue is still there.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I wouldn't object to limited advertising on the BBC, as long as it was between programmes (rather than interrupting them) and as long as there was an advertisement free subscription streaming service with a free option containing ads.

Nothing much to object to there, in my book.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Agree with you 100%. The BBC channels on free view and freesat could contain adverts and be provided subscription free whilst on Sky, BT and Virgin they could be advert free but come at a cost. Not sure how they'd work it mind but I'm sure there must be clever technology out there to be able to make it happen.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Advertisers don't want to spend more so if the BBC took ads it just spreads the ad money even thinner. So programme makers would need to be even more sure of success (ad money) before they could make programmes.

The license fee covers more than just the TV channels though, all those radio stations, how do you keep ad's off FM?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Close most of them down. Waste of good bandwidth. Merge R1 and R2 with ads. Publically fund R4.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

1 and 2 are far too distinct to merge effectively. They could certainly afford to lose 1-Extra, run commercials on 1 and 6, bid for 4 to become some kind of state-funded special case, and cross-subsidise 2 with revenue from its commericalised TV operations, effectively using radio 2 commercial space as advertising for BBC TV. They should sell 3 to classic FM who in my humble opinion do a better, more accessible job of it anyway.

Any local stations that want to stay open would have to go commercial. In reality most of them would close. A few such as Radio Merseyside have a genuine following and would probably survive.

The BBC’s TV operations are based on a mass audience strategy and there’s no way they’re ever going behind a paywall. Absent a licence fee, they’ll go free-to-air with advertising, and will probably merge Four back into BBC2, which did a perfectly good job of that sort of arts output before Four was launched anyway.

I don’t think public funding of TV is ever going to go away completely. The day may well come when the TV licence is terminated, but it will be replaced by something else which, I believe, is likely to fund a central pot which all broadcasters could bid for a slice of in order to fund public service programming.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Only having HD on BBC2 Wales, I set a serial link on it for Top Gear. But the snooker overran (what a shock!) so I decided to watch Top Gear on the iPlayer.

Up popped a message telling me to sign on online to get a 5 digit PIN. Not wanting to boot my PC just for that, I took the option to call the 0800 number for the PIN ("valid until the end of the day").

Am I the only one that can forsee access to iPlayer being via an payable 0870 number at some point, or by a payable online link? And then similar for all BBC TV content?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The iPlayer is part of the BBC’s chartered public service broadcasting operations so they can’t charge for it, support it with adverts, or even give the impression that they’re doing so.

The BBC took a policy decision some years ago to stop using premium rate numbers wherever possible and these days you almost always find them using geographic rate 03 numbers or free 0800 numbers.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I don't see any shortage of advertisers, tweetie.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

I think the combination of subscriptions with advertising-free options available through streaming is the way ahead, and with its newly found freedoms, there would be more money to be made by the BBC than it currently gets from the licence fee.

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

Not now, they can't, but new legislation will fix that.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

https://www.theguardian.com/business...tv-advertising http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news...ne-months.aspx https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-s...10p/share-news

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

On the rather rare occasion I pop the TV on, I probably spend 10 minutes flicking from channel to channel looking for something to watch then turn it off . . . it's all adverts . . on over 50 channels . . even the BBC fill spaces up with endless trailers for up coming programs and the like.

I hate TV with a passion, have done for years, too many channels, not enough decent content (unless you pay for it) . . . bugger that for a game of entertainment :D

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Go KODI! What you want when you want.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

:D erm . . forgot to mention that even if I do find something interesting to watch, it usually clashes with 'her indoors' wanting to watch her favourite soaps, celebrity quizzes, cookery shows (lord knows why 'cos she can't cook), glitzy tarted up talent shows, and any other tat that is disguised as entertainment :p:

Youtube gets some hammer from me . . no adverts either :D