Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I hardly think that drawing attention to the government's ultimate intention to abolish the licence fee and asking how this can be done at this stage is 'BBC licence fee bashing'.
I do think it is entirely legitimate, however, to ask why this outdated system is still relevant in this day and age, particularly given that an increasing proportion of the population would rather that BBC funding did not come from people who did not wish to use the service. We are no longer a 'one channel' country, which was the case when the licence fee was set up, and indeed, there is now a considerable choice available for our citizens via TV and radio.
Personally, despite the government's misgivings about the licence fee, I can't see them abolishing it until the late 2020s at the earliest. We need to wait for gigabit broadband to be rolled out across the country before abolition becomes a viable proposition. I doubt very much whether the government's determination to do something about the BBC following the blatant bias shown towards the Conservatives during and before the election campaign will come to much at this stage, apart from the tokenism of decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee.
The Beeb's Charter expires in 2027, and that is probably when a decision to scrap the licence fee will take place. It will be interesting to note whether this becomes a commitment for the future in the mid-term review which is due in 2021.
The big question is whether all TV is streamed by the end of the next decade, which will make a subscription model workable. The change may hit pensioners hard unless the government comes up with a funding arrangement to assist them to update their equipment.
|
Your tunnel vision around the issue of IPTV is making it difficult for you to understand the issues that are actually at play here.
IP is just another means of delivering television. On-demand streaming is just another way of delivering television. There is no reason why the addition of a new delivery mechanism should alter the fundamental proposition behind the TV licence. The introduction of cable and satellite delivery didn’t, and arguably they should have because at a stroke there were about 20 times more channels available the day after Sky launched than the day before.
The very most that universal gigabit broadband might do is justify DTT switch-off, but even here complete switchover of the National free to air tv infrastructure operates on a very long lead time. Analogue switch-off occurred 14 years after the first DTT service launched. The final VHF broadcast was 20 years after the first UHF service.
The TV licence doesn’t exist to support TV delivered in any particular way. History shows that TV has moved every couple of decades to whatever broadcast standard best suited the medium at the time, with the number of channels and over-the-top services constantly increasing. The TV licence exists to ensure there is a universal news, arts and entertainment service, accessible to all, covering a broad range of interests, at a sustained, high quality.
Arguments about the abolition of the TV licence will have to address the market’s ability to adequately meet these needs without government intervention (which is in essence what the licence system is).