Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
There was indeed support for the licence fee but this isn't why it was retained for the time being. Your comment that the BBC could not provide the same service on a subscription that is equivalent to the licence fee doesn't make sense, unless of course you believe that hordes of people would not subscribe. Which rather goes against the idea that the BBC has overwhelming support, doesn't it?
|
A subscription service introduces a high ongoing cost which needs to be covered somehow. What about most homes that don't have pay TV services? A one-off substantial investment would be required to establish a charging mechanism for these homes.
For the record, of Sky's £20 base pack, the majority goes on marketing, encryption, admin, equipment subsidies so the licence fee would have to rise to cover some of these costs or further services would have to be cut.
So, it's not a simple case of rebranding the licence fee to a subscription fee and assuming costs stay the same. They don't.