Cable Forum - TV licence fee

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - TV licence fee (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33710872)

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36115734)

It is quite revolutionary and I approve comrade OB. I wish I could also decide whether to pay my utility bills too.

The BBC is a public service broadcaster , its unlike other broadcasters. It provides vital services, eg local news/weather/traffic and programmes commercial broadcasters would never do or take risks with. If , God forbid, WW3 starts it would provide a vital function.

I would be in favour of it being funded out of general taxation, other countries have gone down this route. Then at least the ability to pay is a factor. Any subscription service would go after ratings and be like any other downmarket commercial channels, and we've hundreds of those. Programmes like Countryfile, Attenborough docs, risk taking dramas/films wouldn’t get made.

Mr K, you completely missed the point. You pay your utility bills because you have used the services provided. You don't have to pay a gas bill if you have not used any gas.

The BBC is not an emergency service, it is an entertainment service. As I said before, the news and other 'public service' elements of its broadcasting could be separately funded by the government.

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36115760)

Read the BBC's Public Purpose - it's not entertainment. And we all have to pay for services we don't use.

I fear your opinion has been formed from assumptions in place of very basic research. I also fear you won't alter your mind even when your assumptions are shown to be false.

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36115760)

<snip> . . . the news and other 'public service' elements of its broadcasting could be separately funded by the government.

Marvelous idea, imagine the Government handing out money to their mates & chums to produce TV, Radio, and a news service.

I'm sure it will unbiased, value for money, and won't ever, ever go over budget.

:rofl:

Re: TV licence fee

Part govt funding and part subscription sounds like a logical compromise but the devil would be in the detail.

No other major UK broadcaster (or any at all, perhaps?) operates a subscription-only model. So would BBC 'entertainment' be allowed to sell advertising slots? I suspect ITV, Sky, Channel 4 etc would argue that it could have a devestating impact on their businesses.

Of course, there's the argument that we're in the streaming world now, so the BBC should be like Netflix, which costs subscribers significantly less per month than the TV licence. But every subscriber has had their bill effectively subsidised by Netflix's $15 billion debt. Will the government be happy to have billions of debt on its balance sheet in order for a subscription BBC to compete? Given the govt wants to sell Channel 4 because it *might* one day lead to a liability on the govt balance sheet, I suspect not.

Of course there's also the question of how Freeview and Freesat homes - many of which have equipment that's incapable of decrypting broadcasts - would access pay BBC - think about the elderly etc.

I can't see how Andrew Neill's suggestion would work in practice. I suspect the BBC will ultimately end up doing a lot less and be limited to whatever funding the govt decides upon for PSB news, radio etc. Any entertainment offering will be sold off (anyone for EastEnders at 7pm on ITV? ;))

Re: TV licence fee

It’s a huge dilemma. The Behemoth has been built, allowed to burgeon, attracted Kerrie Remainers etc and now, in the Netflix era, will be very challenging to dismantle.

They’ve built the Manchester facilities, doubled the size of Broadcasting House, use the private sector for their (excellent) drama production.

Sorting out the political bias would take some heat off the BBC.

Btw, if it is to be trimmed down to a PBS service, then it still needs to be under charter so as to keep its formal distance from Government. How to fund it, though, is a huge question. And the criminality element must be removed.

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36115761)

The BBC May have a public service remit but most of the output can be described as entertainment. There is no reason why programmes such as ‘Killing Eve’ should be considered as part of the public service broadcast, is there?

The Public Service part of their TV operations could be put on one channel paid for by the government. The vast majority of the BBC’s content could be subscription only (or free with ads).

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36115798)

As Andrew said - you’re operating on assumptions. One of these is that ‘public service’ and ‘entertainment’ are somehow mutually exclusive concepts. They aren’t. “Educate, inform and entertain” *are* the BBC’s public service remit, and have been since 1922.

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36115799)

“Educate, inform and entertain” *are* the BBC’s public service remit, and have been since 1922.

And aren't needed 100 years later, they were then but aren't anymore

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36115799)

Maybe so. But the Charter can be changed.

Now that was easy....

---------- Post added at 08:04 ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inactive Digital (Post 36115768)

You say that no other major UK broadcaster operates a subscription only model, but effectively the BBC operates on the compulsory subscription model called the licence fee. What I am suggesting is that the PSB requirement should be more narrowly defined so that programmes such as dramas and entertainment shows are excluded. The commercial sector is well able to produce good quality drama as the global streamers have already demonstrated. The 'socially necessary' PSB content should be hived off to a government funded channel and the rest could be by subscription.

I accept that payment by subscription is not feasible at the moment as broadband rollout has not been completed, but I would draw your attention to Ofcom's report 'Broadcasting in the Digital Age', which states:

'Our analysis shows that the DTT platform will remain uncontested for free-to-air TV for
at least the next ten years. While most broadcasters expect in the long term to migrate
fully to the internet, that is not feasible today. Broadband networks are not yet of
sufficient quality to support universal HD streaming and more than 40 per cent of TV sets
cannot yet connect to broadband. So, for broadcasters and viewers alike, DTT will remain
important for some time. Our earlier work had suggested that there would be strong
competition from mobile companies for the valuable airwaves, or spectrum, that underpin
DTT. But mobile demand has substantially diminished as investments in 5G require
spectrum at higher frequencies.'

The Netflix debt that you refer to is due mainly to the incredible investment they have made in creating original material. However, the BBC already has a huge library of programmes to draw on and so does not need that level of investment.

There is no reason why the BBC cannot be split in the way I have suggested. Britbox is already funded by advertising, as is the new ITVX service due to be launched later this year.

The changes are already falling into place right here, right now, but some still cannot see it. They don't want to see it.

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36115800)

And aren't needed 100 years later, they were then but aren't anymore

Why not?

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36115800)

And aren't needed 100 years later, they were then but aren't anymore

Which one, or do you mean all of them are no longer needed, entertain perhaps :confused::erm: it's not as if people need to be educated these days !!!!!

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36115806)

Why not?

Because we now have multi-channel TV and a huge selection of entertainment on streamers, many of which are now looking at ad-free options.

It was different when there was only one channel.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36115863)

Which one, or do you mean all of them are no longer needed, entertain perhaps :confused::erm: it's not as if people need to be educated these days !!!!!

Are you suggesting that no channel other than the BBC is capable of educating?

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36115761)

And we all have to pay for services we don't use.

Not in regards to tv?

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36115806)

Why not?

Because 100 years ago there were no channels, then there was one and it was an essential service, now its one amongst many getting special treatment that's no longer needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36115863)

Which one, or do you mean all of them are no longer needed, entertain perhaps :confused::erm: it's not as if people need to be educated these days !!!!!

Because there's dozens of channels seeking to entertain, educate and inform, not really sure why that's so confusing, try changing the channel or better yet switch it off.

Re: BBC licence fee

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36115929)

Because 100 years ago there were no channels, then there was one and it was an essential service, now its one amongst many getting special treatment that's no longer needed.

Because there's dozens of channels seeking to entertain, educate and inform, not really sure why that's so confusing, try changing the channel or better yet switch it off.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: