Funding of the BBC
 

This could be the last decade of the licence fee, and there is a real possibility that this could be replaced by a subscription system following the next review.

The main reason I believe this was not introduced this year was because it would be nigh on impossible to work out who had and had not paid a subscription for their radios, and of course those relying on just an aerial to receive their services would also present the same problem. Of course, at the same time it would not be possible to switch off the delivery of those services, even if you did not know who had not paid.

However, in the future, technology will be different. Both radio and TV will be delivered over the internet, although how quickly that will transpire and replace existing free to air broadcasting remains to be seen. Some academics are saying this will happen within 15 years, but this may underestimate the problems that will be encountered switching many people over from their outdated equipment. The issues for the elderly and the poor are particularly acute.

In the meantime, the first problem is to consider how we deal with free licences for the over-75s. The BBC is now consulting on this. My preferred option would be simply to stop issuing new free licences, but allow existing recipients to keep going for the remainder of their years. The problem with that is that it would cost the Beeb a bomb in the early years, affecting their ability to provide their existing range of programming (according to them).

My next preferred option would be to means test those who wish to apply or retain the existing benefit they receive. There are many people who are receiving the free licence who have no need of this benefit at the same time as phasing it out as above. But is there a simple way of means testing?

One way or another, these costs have to be reduced, so perhaps the easiest method is to phase it out over three years - down to 75% in the first year, 50% in the second, 25% in the third, followed by no subsidy. At the same time, the BBC could ensure that no new arrangements for this group would be payable until aged 80.

It's a difficult one, and the BBC is consulting on the best arrangement that should be explored. What do you think?

https://www.a516digital.com/2018/11/...future-of.html

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I prefer the licence system. If it goes subscription it will go out of the ball park..

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

It will be twice as much as it is now IMO if it goes the subscription model way.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I have just moved in to a property that had no chain and it had been stood empty for over a year nearly. The amount of threatening letters from the License folk in that time, could they not see the house was unoccupied, the sold sign on the front lawn?

We did not get a license until we actually moved in - some decoration was needed but in that time from when the purchase was complete, until we moved in we received another threatening letter.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

That is not necessarily so, Den. The BBC can make money in other ways, and this will easily compensate for the small numbers who will opt not to subscribe.

It is an antiquated system and well overdue for an overhaul. It is not fair to charge everyone for an entertainment service that some do not choose to access.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Receiving threatening letters is OTT in my opinion as surely they can by some technical mean know if someone is using a TV.

---------- Post added at 12:14 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------

There are many in this country who think we are already paying enough each month and your plans would raise the cost significantly IMO

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

If the BBC keep making good quality programmes, they will have nothing to worry about. As part of the deal, the government should allow the Beeb to venture into areas that it is not allowed to at present (eg premium TV for first run shows, advertising as an alternative for those who do not wish to subscribe, etc).

The whole arrangement needs to be far more flexible, and with government grants available to all TV services providing good quality public service broadcasting.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Sometimes in life OB one has to think of the large majority rather then a very small minority don't you think so?.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

As I said, the cost does not have to rise if the government gave the Beeb more flexibility.

As for the technical means of knowing whether those TV detectors can actually identify people watching TV without a licence, that is a matter for speculation!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The problem with subscription is the BBC does a lot of real public service broadcasting too. BBC News obviously, BBC World Service to an extent, but all the local radio and local production work. The BBC is the default platform for any national or local events that need coverage and I am not sure how that would work with a subscription service since these things are meant to be there for everyone.

I also think we want to protect and promote British artists and the BBC along with the National Theatre and other such schemes do that really well. So many of the internationally successful British artists, from musicians to writers, were given their first exposure to the world via the BBC. I don't want Britain to become a side market of America.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The government has reduced the BBC funding so is certainly no friend of the BBC as it stands.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

We are in 2018 OB not the 1960's.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There is nothing to stop the government continuing to fund public service broadcasting. This is not an argument against having a subscription instead of the licence fee.

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

I don't think it is any way justifiable to charge people for an entertainment service they never use. Why would you even think that was fair?

As I said before, there are other means of revenue generation that could plug any gap between money collected via subscriptions and the money currently collected through the licence fee.

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

There is no doubt that many Conservatives do not like the way the BBC operates at present.

So you truly believe those OTT detector horns on top of the vans are actually capable of detecting anything? I think they are there to intimidate!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There was a time back in the days of valve and CRT TV's that it was theoretically possible to detect from a distance if a TV was running. These days a TV can be used for many purposes other than watching live TV.

Anyway remote sensing "evidence" is inadmissable in a UK court of law.

Bear in mind that the "TV" could esaily be a laptop or mobile using a streaming service.

TVL compare their database of licences against that of the electoral register etc. and their computers send the same circular sequence of threatening letters to the difference addresses.

Naturally. Most people haven't a clue about technology. Being an electronics engineer I know what is and is not possible.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The "radiation" they used to detect came from the aerial, they detected an active local oscillator. These do not exist in digital TV's. Picking up screen signals is easier than you think, hence so much security shielding around military commcens, including isolated mains lines and earth points.

I think we'll end up paying a "BBC Tax", then after a few years the government, still strapped for cash, will introduce a tax covering all forms of signal reception. With a name such as Digital Access Tax.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I got a nasty threatening letter at one of my business premises yesterday. No doubt that'll go on now for the next few years like it usually does :rolleyes:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Its been the fairest way hence thus so far and if it ain't broke you don't need to fix it

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

No wonder as if the ones who don't like it get their way the BBC many of us know and admire won't be here in 10 years.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

An interesting conclusion from a paper on this:


Sounds pretty likely, probably paid as a surtax on any subscription or BB service. Who gets the cash is less predictable as El Gov might just want to pocket the lot.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

l am pretty sure there are technical ways of detecting a signal.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Not only do you have to detect a signal, it has to be identifiable as a live TV broadcast and you have to be able to determine it's location. No good detecting next door playing computer games.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Except you haven't answered my point. Why do you disregard the unfairness of someone having to pay a charge for an entertainment service they don't receive?

You'd be quick enough to complain if you were being charged for a channel or PPV film you didn't ask for. How is this any different?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Its more a case of you not answering the question l posed to you earlier as you seem to have developed convenient memory loss when it suits you.

Here is the question again for you.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Another day, another anti-BBC thread from OB... :sleep:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Yes it involves a sofa and a tub of popcorn.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Pah! It's called peering in your window or listening through the letterbox. Nothing more sophisticated.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I framed my question in the light of your question.

Ok, in this case, the answer is no. It's different if you are providing essential services such as education and social care, then yes, everyone should pay as it is beneficial to society as a whole.

But this is not an essential service, it is entertainment. Why should the BBC be thrust down the throats of those who don't want it? There are other channels that are free of charge to watch, after all!

---------- Post added at 18:20 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

It's not anti-BBC, it's anti-licence fee. You do like to twist things, don't you, Mr K?

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

I'm glad I re-read that. You said 'peering', not the word I thought you used....:erm:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So those TV licensing ads were basically lying to the masses? Naughty BBC

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The last detector van I noticed had a much more impressive detector scanner. It looked like something out of the early 1960s Dr Who series!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

All designed to keep the proles in order and paying the BBC tax.

Fake, fake, fake.

Over ten years now NOT paying the BBC tax but watching non-BBC output.

If their technology was that good it has failed. :rofl:

More fool anybody who is still paying this nonsense.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

You will have mail loads of complaints coming through your door old bean as the last time l counted there were about 30 million fools watching good old auntie.;):D

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Get the inspectors round to Worthing then ! Are you sure you don't use any BBC services, local and national radio, website, news, weather, iPlayer, BBC content on other channels? A high proportion of cable TV is repeating BBC output, which would have never been made without a licence fee.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The BBC will not operate a subscription model. Its business model is based on mass penetration. In the event of the license fee system being withdrawn, they will operate in exactly the same way as all the other public service broadcasters do, i.e. free to air, with advertising.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There is an increasing number of services operating both a free or reduced price option with advertisements and an advertisement free option at a higher price.

Your post assumes it is not possible to change your business model. They may be forced to do so. It is disgraceful in this day and age that people who never make use of BBC services are still obliged to pay for the Corporation. It is also a disgrace that some are making use of their services and getting away with not paying.

The subscription model overcomes these problems. Ultimately, the BBC will need to adjust.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There is no logical progression in your argument.

None of the current commercial public service broadcasters operates a mixed free/pay model. Channel 4 has tried it in the past with Film 4 and more recently with their music channel. It didn’t work. ITV tried it when they took over OnDigital. It didn’t work.

Sky obvs does operate a mixed model, but they do not have PSB obligations and their free channels are designed mostly as showreels for their premium content, as you’ll know if you’ve ever sat through a commercial break on Pick.

You have asserted that subscriptions would solve the problems of licence fee dodging, and people feeling they’re paying for a service they don’t use (personally I don’t believe the last argument is true in 99% of cases, but that’s another issue). Subscriptions would solve the problem, at the expense of creating another one - that the BBC’s entire output is based on the assumption that they’re broadcasting to everyone.

Almost everything the BBC does would change overnight if it went behind a paywall and saw audiences for its biggest shows cut in half, or worse. Remaining free to air and supporting itself with advertising, on the other hand, would allow it to continue to do most of what it already does, and maintain audience figures at their current level - and command a premium no other broadcasters can offer. Can you imagine the price tag for a 30-second commercial in the middle of Eastenders?

The best thing from the BBC’s point of view is that the FTA model already operates at ITV, Channel 4 and Five, and even in the difficult commercial climate of the last decade it works. If faced with a choice between a subscription model requiring radical change to its practices and a free-to-air model under which things would stay largely the same, no sane executive is going to choose a paywall.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

:tu:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

+1

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Do you watch live TV as it's broadcast?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

About 30% of our viewing. Mostly foodie channels and discovery / documentary type stuff. Though to call that live TV is rather misleading as they are all recorded programmes.

Rest is downloads, youtube, streams, DVDs and box sets.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

FYI

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Any chance we can get back on the BBC Funding line, Chris made an excellent post above - this isn't a thread on why people need a TV license.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So you're breaking the law. Not wise to admit to such things on the internet.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Excuse me - follow my directive above.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I posted that before reading further down. Still the point still stands, you have a forum member who has openely admitted to breaking the law which can be linked into the topic of BBC funding if they aren't paying for something they should be paying for.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Enough - this is not a debate on law breaking - follow the instruction. - I am not interested on whether someone is breaking the law, this is not the premise of this topic.

Further such posts will be deleted and you will get an infraction warning for ignoring a team instruction.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There does seem to be an assumption that many people make that just because things are as they are now, that is evidence that it cannot be changed. Having seen all the big changes that have happened to TV over the last 20 years, this appears to me to be an incredible frame of mind to hold.

On demand viewing seemed to come out of nowhere when cable went digital. Maybe I was asleep at the time, but that took me by surprise - I just discovered. it on the menu when we switched over from analogue.

Just a few short years ago, who would have thought we would ever get a service like Netflix on our TVs? What is more, to have the content available on our boxes, integrated in such a way that we can bookmark its content to appear on 'My Shows'?

You say that none of our public service broadcasters currently operate a mixed model, but that is incorrect. ITV Hub + gives just that choice.

http://www.itv.com/help/itv-hub

As you know, the BBC is looking at creating a website with content from their own channels as well as ITV and Channel 4. If Ofcom allow this to get off the ground, and they have already admitted they got it wrong when they prevented Project Kangaroo from seeing the light of day, then there is no reason why this should not be successful. I would imagine that this project will enable free viewing with ads or uninterrupted viewing with a subscription. There is no reason why such a venture would not succeed.

The BBC's entire output is certainly not based on the assumption they are broadcasting to everyone as you say. It is based on the principle that everyone who meets the all encompassing criteria is charged. I agree that changing over to a voluntary subscription will lose them a relatively small number of viewers, but a premium subscription offer could take care of that.

You present the choices faced by the BBC either to go behind a paywall or a free to air model. What I am saying is that it could be both, and that would maximise viewership.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

How do you arrive that this conclusion, please?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Maybe you should give your views to the BBC consultation OB ?

Even if you did convince us ,we can't change anything ;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

In my view the BBC changing over to a voluntary subscription would lose them a significant amount number of viewers but it won't happen so that's the end of that.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

We've all heard that practically everyone uses the BBC one way or another and that its programmes are superior and more wide ranging than on any other channels. Accordingly, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the population will elect to pay a subscription. They might even start receiving money from people who currently avoid paying, as unless you paid, you would not be able to access the service!

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:13 ----------

I wouldn't expect you to hold any other view, Den, as of course nothing ever changes. :argue:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So you think the vast majority are going to be paying for a subscription that would be way over what a household is paying now then you are living in la-la land.

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Actual reality is far better then being totally unrealistic l find OB.;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

You are not paying attention, Den. The subscription would replace the licence fee. There is no reason for this to be at a higher price if they also provide a separate offer with ads and no subscription.

---------- Post added at 16:53 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

Channel 4 are at it as well! Free with ads or subscription with no ads. Most SVOD services will offer dual options such as this in the future.

https://www.tvbeurope.com/tvbeverywh...l-its-own-svod

Channel 4 is to trial its own subscription video-on-demand service.

All 4+ will launch as a web only beta test with an invited sample group in December.

In a statement to TVBEurope, the broadcaster said the results of the beta test will be evaluated during early 2019 and will inform the future strategic development of the product.

It's thought the service will cost £3.99 for advert-free access.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Just as Traffic Wardens were under Police budgets and control, became Parking Attendants, then Civil Enforcement Officers under Council budgets and control, I foresee the BBC taking over the budget and control of the TV Licensing company. Tweaks to how the license is collected, and from whom, will continue, with some tweaks for Pensioner licences, perhaps making them means tested.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So ... you don’t have any evidence. You’re building assertions on top of anecdotes.

Forgive me if I don’t take your argument very seriously (being as it isn’t, in fact, an argument at all).

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Don't worry he'll start another BBC thread next week...:rolleyes:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

oh no, not another BBC repeat :D ;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

No. I was pointing out to the naysayers on this Forum that it was they themselves who have been talking up the value of the BBC.

If you genuinely believe in that, why would you think that great numbers would decide not to pay what they are paying now?

Of course this is a legitimate argument. It is simply not on that people who don't take the service have to pay for it anyway.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The BBC have known for years that the funds raised from the licence fee were never going to match their expenditure given the amount of money they waste paying absolutely massive and unnecessary salaries.

The BBC have not learned the lessons of the past whereby we all have to live within our means. Instead they waste losts of money and expect ordinary people with limited means to pick up the tab.

We need to sack Tony Hall and members of the BBC Trust and put in place people from the National Audit Office who are brilliant at identifying money wasted by the government and could do the same at the BBC.

If the BBC decide to go over to a subscription system what will happen to Sky & Virgin customers? Will the BBC charge Sky & Virgin more for BBC channels? It may well be that rather than subscribe directly to the BBC, customers may simply stick with Sky and Virgin on the assumption it will be cheaper.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Without the BBC we have no reliable PBS.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The Beeb will not be going anywhere!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Well at least we can agree on that..

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Of course the BBC will continue. But I'm searching with a microscope and I can't see any unique PSB output. In the listings that is. ;)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Here is a prime example of how the licence fee system actually hinders the BBC from delivering its content to viewers. Ofcom is playing hardball with the Beeb's plans to provide more content on the i-Player and they are continuing to restrict the amount of time it is on there, in most cases, to a 30 day period.

Moving to a voluntary subscription model should resolve this problem as this would mean the BBC was competing fairly and on a level playing field. Thus, they would have more freedom from Ofcom as the competition concerns would no longer be there.

This decision clearly shows that the existing licence fee system is actually detrimental to viewers as well as to competing providers.

https://advanced-television.com/2018...layer-changes/

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Think you've succeeded on boring us to death on your many threads/posts on this one OB !

Compared to Sky/VM subs it's terrific value, £12 a month. The cost is only so low because of its universal nature, moving to a subscription would mean costs increasing significantly and it content being the same as commercial channels, ie. crap. The BBC make programmes others don't because of its funding stream.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Whilst others might agree with OB's sentiments l am with you for once on this Mr K as l think for the breadth of content they make the license fee is well worth the the value IMO.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I agree about the comparison of the cost of the licence fee with the pay tv operators, but I think it will prove unsustainable to continue to fleece those who don't want to access BBC content.

You may be bored with the debate on this, Mr K, but for some people this is a real issue. We keep hearing people prattle on about fairness, and yet for some curious reason, those same people are silent on this clear example of unfairness.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Well if you think you or others are being fleeced by the BBC then like any customer who goes out shopping for something you don't have to buy it OB as its that simple at the end of the day..

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

But you do have to buy it if you want to view other content that is classed as live TV.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Its peanuts compared to what people shell out on pay tv subscriptions. I don't really believe there are that many that don't access any BBC services, which include much more than just TV. Services like Local Radio, website, news weather - it has a public service remit, who would fill these roles of they weren't 'profitable' ?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

:tu:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

It's not peanuts to everyone, and certainly not in comparison with Amazon or Netflix.

---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

I am prepared to pay a subscription to the BBC. But I agree with those who watch other channels and not BBC channels that they should not have to pay.

A subscription would ensure that they operated on a more commercial basis, which would ensure that much of the waste and bureaucracy that we are paying for would end. The BBC needs more financial discipline and needs to be able to act as a commercial broadcaster in order to do what it wants to do (eg provide programmes for longer than 30 days on the BBC i-Player)

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------

It's not good value if you don't watch it, Den. It's a waste of money.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Well, when Netflix or Amazon provide 10 national radio stations, 40 local radio stations, a World News service, and an extensive website with news, educational, and factual information, that would be a valid comparison.

Until then you’re comparing apples with hedgehogs.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Exactly!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I was talking about the amount of money, Hugh, I was not making that kind of comparison in response to this particular post.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

But the amount of money is what provides the breadth of services - they charge slightly more than Netflix and Amazon per month, but provide so much more...

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I don't watch BBC TV so I don't want to to be forced to pay £12 a month.

I do use the BBC websites but I would stop doing that in an instant if it was subscription as it is alot of money in my opinion, we should get the choice.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

They do in terms of breadth of services, Hugh, I agree, but Netflix provides much more excellent scripted content.

To be clear, I would still pay for the BBC if it scrapped the licence fee in favour of a subscription, and I think most households would do the same. But the Beeb would be much more accountable to its subscribers, much more careful with how it spends its money and would no longer charge people who didn't watch its output. What's more, the Government would interfere less than it does now and the BBC could pursue its on demand ventures to its heart's content without being slapped down by Ofcom.

I think a subscription based service has benefits to all, actually.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

And there’s the flaw in your proposition- "you think".

I would rather the dismantling of a world-reknowned organisation, admired and respected by many other countries, was based on pragmatic fact-based information, rather than "feels".

No business should, or would, change it’s funding model based on ‘think", rather than "know"...

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

How would anyone 'know' until a subscription BBC became a reality? This constant quest for 'proof' that something will happen in the future is rather amusing, because one cannot know until we get there.

And yet those who say something won't happen appear not to believe they need to offer any 'proof' at all.

Very curious. :rolleyes:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

And if the subscription model didn’t work?

Oops?

No business changes its funding model without in depth market research, due diligence, and impact & risk assessments - not just "let’s try it, what’s the worst that could happen?".

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

As per usual, this topic is getting stuck on the “the BBC should go subscription because that’s a bit like the licence fee innit” nonsense.

As has been said many times before, public service broadcasting in the U.K., with the single exception of the BBC, operates on a free-to-view, advertising-supported model. This is the model that is proven to work for a broadcaster that requires universal, or near-universal availability in British homes. In the event that the licence fee is ended at the next charter review, that is the model the BBC will adopt.

(But the licence won’t be terminated at the next review - that wouldn’t give them time to prepare. If things were going to change, they terms of the next royal charter would likely specify that they would occur at some point within the next charter period, so that would be the second half of the 2020s at the earliest. *If* Parliament decided to end the TV licence. Which I still don’t think it will.)

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Except that they have plenty of time to prepare. It was a consideration this time around, remember? Do you seriously think 10 years + is not enough time to prepare?

I note you have not commented on the unfairness of having people pay for a service they don't use. How bizarre!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Its only unfair to those who can't see through their own very selfish insular vision the great scope and breadth of content that the BBC does whether its TV, online , Radio , etc , etc , etc.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

How is it selfish not to want to pay for something you don't use. I keep seeing what great value the BBC is at just £12 per month, how is it great value if you never watch it, I watch about 12 hours tv per month, never the BBC, explain how I'm getting great value for money, I can see how others are though due to their viewing being subsidised by mugs like me

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 ----------

You heard any of those local radio stations recently, no thought not, no one has and how many are putting out unique livr content all day?

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Well if you could miss those 12 hours TV a month, you wouldn't need to pay a licence fee. ?
As mentioned the BBC isn't just TV; and a lot of paid for cable channels are repeating BBC output. If nothing new is made we'd soon get bored. There's some great new drama this Christmas, and it's mostly on the BBC. Every other channel is 95% repeats.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I don't actually know the numbers but quite a few people do listen to BBC Local Radio. It's an underappreciated part of the BBC's output since it's often where the public service aspect is strong, covering local stories and events which would otherwise go ignored by a wider population. I think this is more pronounced outside of London where the media tends to have less of a natural interest.

And yes they do tend to do a lot of unique content. Here is Cumbria's schedule: https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl79#on-now

Most of it is live and unique other than the early hours where they fall back to Radio 5 Live.

This is in contrast to the media landscape in the United States where theoretically there would be larger audiences for local content but in reality most local stations are owned by major media companies and play syndicated national radio shows to save money.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

There's talk of a digital license where a little thing like not having a telly won't protect you from having to pay that notwithstanding I'm not getting value and neither are many, many others and whilst we are at it why are we subsidising mps tv viewing



It's literally a few people listening and falling all the time

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

So you're calling me selfish just because i don't want to pay the License Fee, as i don't watch BBC TV or Listen to Radio, i have more important things to spend that £12 on which i would then get a choice to do, that comment is just ridiculous............... Thanks Den!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

The TV licence is not a BBC subscription. It is, in effect, a tax on the consumption of broadcast TV. The proceeds of this effective tax are mostly, but not entirely, used to fund the BBC’s freely available TV, radio and internet services. This continues to be justified in law in precisely the same way other public services are. Their availability is what you’re paying for, not their use. Arguing that it’s unfair that you’re paying for something you don’t use is as pointless as arguing you should get a council tax reduction if you don’t send your kids to school.

The next charter comes into effect at the beginning of 2027, which is 8 years from now, not 10+. As the review process only occurs in the two years running up to this date, there is no chance of the BBC being cut off from all licence fee funding on that time scale. If Parliament is minded to change or end the BBC’s access to public funds, it would do so on a staged basis, which in law could not commence before January 2027.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

A lot of things are subsidised to a extent on many things in this country which some don't use as but sometimes we have think of the wider good that something does rather then ones own self.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

Perhaps the comment is a bit OTT but many things are subsided to a certain extent SnoopZ and IMO BBC does far more for the greater good in this country then the others put together.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Not selfish at all.

Being forced to pay the fee is ridiculous. When TV started and it was only the BBC being broadcast and getting those services for that fee.

Most people pay enough for TV and streaming services now so many don't see the need for it.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

tv isn't an essential service and shouldn't be subsidised, tv licencing is a relic from a bygone era that's long past it's sell by date and it's purpose is no longer relevant imo

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

That is not an appropriate comparison. We all benefit from education of the population. We are talking about entertainment, Chris, for heaven's sake!

8 years, 10 years...plenty of time to prepare for a subscription based model. You must move very slowly in your house! It really isn't rocket science. To ease the way, the government could guarantee to supplement any loss of income for, say, the first five years, to help the BBC to adjust to the new arrangements, with the benefit then of knowing how much they are bringi g in by way of the new method.

With the freedom from government control (such as that ridiculous Ofcom decision to severely limit what can appear on the i-Player) and the ability to create new premium offerings as well as tapping into the global market more comprehensively, the difference between what they currently earn via the licence fee and what they would get from subscriptions if they made no changes would soon be plugged.

---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

If you think I have a blinkered approach, how do you explain the fact that you cannot (or don't want) to see the inherent unfairness this is to those who do not watch or listen to BBC programmes? That is a very good example of being blinkered, surely?

It is selfish to expect others who do not benefit from it to pay for a non-essential service that you like to receive.

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------

It's entertainment, Den, not a blood transfusion service!

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Its way over the top and just ridiculous, i mean the BBC doesn't do anything for me, and if you had to pay £12 for my house bills i am sure you would feel the same way.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Of course, because there’s nothing else on the BBC apart from entertainment, its research and development departments have never contributed anything to the industry in general, and the market it has created for innovative, independent production companies to produce their - quelle horreur - entertainment output in no way benefits the British economy, nor does it help the U.K. to punch far above its weight in international TV and film production expertise. :dozey:

It appears you are some considerable distance from actually understanding the issues here.

As I already said: the TV licence is not a mandatory subscription. It is a tax, which ensures that quality services are available to all. You own a house, you pay council tax. You use broadcast tv services, you pay for a tv licence. As Hugh so eloquently put it the other day, comparing the TV licence to a Netflix subscription is like comparing apples and hedgehogs. They don’t serve the same purpose, and you can’t simply transpose one business funding model onto another corporation with radically different aims and objectives.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

If you consume British-made TV content in any form, from any vendor in the U.K., then the BBC has done something for you, whether you actually tune your TV to the BBC or not. It really is as simple as that.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

I disagree but i am happy to send £12 of my monthly bills to you guys if you like.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

It's not about how wonderfully fluffy the BBC is and what great content it provides. This is about people who just want a fair, simple choice / option to be able to opt out of its service without having to get rid of their existing services and devices that are able to view the BBC's unwanted content.

As I've said before, if the BBC means so much to so many, then going PPV wouldn't be that much of a big deal, as I'm sure the money would carry on flooding in to such a wonderfully fluffy corporation.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

100% correct, if someone said they had to pay a Sky subscription whether they wanted it or not everyone would be up in arms, which is the exact same thing.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

Pay Per View? For every single programme? :confused:

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

PPV as in a monthly fee or annual charge like Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

As you well know, the vast majority of this money goes to the BBC, and so whatever you may choose to call it, the TV licence is a mandatory subscription.

If the government wants to contribute to the broadcasting industry, it could do so directly rather than through the BBC.

I respect your view that the present system works for everyone, but I disagree with you profoundly and don't buy these arguments at all. As I said, the way the BBC is obliged to operate at the moment is preventing the Corporation from making the necessary changes the public wants and will soon come to expect.

Re: Funding of the BBC
 

What changes?