[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

The BBC iPlayer is currently available on a variety of platforms including TVs, computers, smartphones, tablets and games consoles. A TV licence is not required to use the iPlayer to watch programmes which have already been broadcast but the 'Watch Live' simulcast service does require one. However, development of the iPlayer was funded by the licence fee and was criticised for taking years of development before producing a viable product.

Nobody said that BBC local radio stations were in jeopardy but they might be if funding was diverted to local BBC TV stations instead. It might be nice to have local TV services covering local news and events in better times but it is just the wrong time to be doing it. If the idea fails then nobody will try it again for decades because it will be marred by having failed without taking into consideration the economic environment of the time. I don't believe that we should be trying to do this for a few years and I can only cynically suggest that it is proposed as a money earner for the government through licensing and for the BBC and Arqiva through leasing of studio and broadcast facilities and the all important EPG slots and Freeview multiplexes.

The current licence fee subsidised the digital switch-over so it should be sufficient to fund public service broadcasting at its current level and even cover future innovation especially if cost savings are realised within the BBC.

Whilst it would be a shame to see services like BBC World Service (radio)* and BBC World News (TV)* go or reduce their broadcasting hours, this is what the majority of former colonial powers and propaganda merchants have been doing in favour of website content and internet streaming of radio and TV programmes. The Irish national broadcaster RTÉ was due to launch an international service this/next year which VM were expected to carry but have shelved it in favour of expanding their website and on-line player functionality. Radio Netherlands and countless others are restricting their overseas services, especially on short-wave radio, as there is no longer a need to provide these services for ex-patriots with the advent of other delivery mechanisms. The 'colonies' are not as cut off from the world as they used to be!

*BBC World Service (radio) is currently funded by the British Government through a grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but, from 2014, it will be funded by the BBC licence fee. This may be an indication that the FCO no longer feel the need for such a service for the reasons stated above and I feel it is unfair that the domestic licence fee-payers should be funding a service for non-fee-payers abroad.

*BBC World News (TV) is a commercially operated service funded by advertising and competing against other news channels, principally CNN. It has the largest audience of any BBC channel.

I do understand what you are saying, but the BBC world service and world news services are still important and now you can get them online, I feel that we need to expand the lisesnce fee to make it fit for purpose for this day and age.

---------- Post added at 21:24 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

So we should fund the BBC both through the licence fee and through other forms of direct or indirect taxation?

There are far more appropriate ways that the BBC can manage to operate within their current budget without affecting quality. It is also very important that the BBC's funding should be easily identifiable rather than being hidden in back door government funding from the tax-payer. If anything, the BBC needs to become more autonomous and more business-like and less like a state owned broadcaster.

Which Is why I feel that the BBC should control the licence fee, not the government.

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Horizon

I beg to differ!

Apart from the 3 new channels today, there has only been 2 other genuine new channels this year, PBS and True Entertainment which have launched on cable.

The rest are +1s or HD versions of existing channels. And some channels like Yesterday+1 and Eden+1 are only relaunches as their predecessor channels used to be on cable before they were removed (UK History+1 and UK Docs+1 removed in 2008.)

Plus Vm has removed several channels over the last few years, many because of the VMtv sale to Sky. If VM bring back channels such as MTV Classic, More 4 +1, History +1, Animal Planet +1 that were removed plus add channels that should've been on the platform ages ago ie, History HD. Then add more recent channels such as the rest of the CBS ones, Universal HD, ITV's HDs etc, then it is adding choice.

But at the moment, I don't see how removing some channels with one hand and adding others with another is adding to choice. It's just keeping things level.

I would agree that 100%, I also think that removing Current TV would be a bad idea