Thread: Funding of the BBC
View Single Post
Old 19-12-2018, 10:54   #91
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 with 360 software, ITVX, 4+, Prime, Netflix, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount+, Discovery+
Posts: 15,081
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: Funding of the BBC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
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.
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone View Post
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.
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone View Post
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
It's entertainment, Den, not a blood transfusion service!
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote