Funding of the BBC

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

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 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

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 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

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!

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by denphone

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 self.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------



Perhaps the comment is a bit OTT but many things are subsided to a certain extent SnoopZ and IMO BBC does far more for the greater good in this country then the others put together.

Its way over the top and just ridiculous, i mean the BBC doesn't do anything for me, and if you had to pay £12 for my house bills i am sure you would feel the same way.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That is not an appropriate comparison. We all benefit from education of the population. We are talking about entertainment, Chris, for heaven's sake!

Of course, because there’s nothing else on the BBC apart from entertainment, its research and development departments have never contributed anything to the industry in general, and the market it has created for innovative, independent production companies to produce their - quelle horreur - entertainment output in no way benefits the British economy, nor does it help the U.K. to punch far above its weight in international TV and film production expertise.

It appears you are some considerable distance from actually understanding the issues here.

As I already said: the TV licence is not a mandatory subscription. It is a tax, which ensures that quality services are available to all. You own a house, you pay council tax. You use broadcast tv services, you pay for a tv licence. As Hugh so eloquently put it the other day, comparing the TV licence to a Netflix subscription is like comparing apples and hedgehogs. They don’t serve the same purpose, and you can’t simply transpose one business funding model onto another corporation with radically different aims and objectives.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

Its way over the top and just ridiculous, i mean the BBC doesn't do anything for me, and if you had to pay £12 for my house bills i am sure you would feel the same way.

If you consume British-made TV content in any form, from any vendor in the U.K., then the BBC has done something for you, whether you actually tune your TV to the BBC or not. It really is as simple as that.

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by Chris

Of course, because there’s nothing else on the BBC apart from entertainment, its research and development departments have never contributed anything to the industry in general, and the market it has created for innovative, independent production companies to produce their - quelle horreur - entertainment output in no way benefits the British economy, nor does it help the U.K. to punch far above its weight in international TV and film production expertise.

It appears you are some considerable distance from actually understanding the issues here.

As I already said: the TV licence is not a mandatory subscription. It is a tax, which ensures that quality services are available to all. You own a house, you pay council tax. You use broadcast tv services, you pay for a tv licence. As Hugh so eloquently put it the other day, comparing the TV licence to a Netflix subscription is like comparing apples and hedgehogs. They don’t serve the same purpose, and you can’t simply transpose one business funding model onto another corporation with radically different aims and objectives.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------



If you consume British-made TV content in any form, from any vendor in the U.K., then the BBC has done something for you, whether you actually tune your TV to the BBC or not. It really is as simple as that.

I disagree but i am happy to send £12 of my monthly bills to you guys if you like.

[Jimmy-J]

It's not about how wonderfully fluffy the BBC is and what great content it provides. This is about people who just want a fair, simple choice / option to be able to opt out of its service without having to get rid of their existing services and devices that are able to view the BBC's unwanted content.

As I've said before, if the BBC means so much to so many, then going PPV wouldn't be that much of a big deal, as I'm sure the money would carry on flooding in to such a wonderfully fluffy corporation.

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

It's not about how wonderfully fluffy the BBC is and what great content it provides. This is about people who just want a fair, simple choice / option to be able to opt out of its service without having to get rid of their existing services and devices that are able to view the BBC's unwanted content.

As I've said before, if the BBC means so much to so many, then going PPV wouldn't be that much of a big deal, as I'm sure the money would carry on flooding in to such a wonderfully fluffy corporation.

100% correct, if someone said they had to pay a Sky subscription whether they wanted it or not everyone would be up in arms, which is the exact same thing.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

It's not about how wonderfully fluffy the BBC is and what great content it provides. This is about people who just want a fair, simple choice / option to be able to opt out of its service without having to get rid of their existing services and devices that are able to view the BBC's unwanted content.

As I've said before, if the BBC means so much to so many, then going PPV wouldn't be that much of a big deal, as I'm sure the money would carry on flooding in to such a wonderfully fluffy corporation.

Pay Per View? For every single programme?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Pay Per View? For every single programme?

PPV as in a monthly fee or annual charge like Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Of course, because there’s nothing else on the BBC apart from entertainment, its research and development departments have never contributed anything to the industry in general, and the market it has created for innovative, independent production companies to produce their - quelle horreur - entertainment output in no way benefits the British economy, nor does it help the U.K. to punch far above its weight in international TV and film production expertise.

It appears you are some considerable distance from actually understanding the issues here.

As I already said: the TV licence is not a mandatory subscription. It is a tax, which ensures that quality services are available to all. You own a house, you pay council tax. You use broadcast tv services, you pay for a tv licence. As Hugh so eloquently put it the other day, comparing the TV licence to a Netflix subscription is like comparing apples and hedgehogs. They don’t serve the same purpose, and you can’t simply transpose one business funding model onto another corporation with radically different aims and objectives.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------



If you consume British-made TV content in any form, from any vendor in the U.K., then the BBC has done something for you, whether you actually tune your TV to the BBC or not. It really is as simple as that.

As you well know, the vast majority of this money goes to the BBC, and so whatever you may choose to call it, the TV licence is a mandatory subscription.

If the government wants to contribute to the broadcasting industry, it could do so directly rather than through the BBC.

I respect your view that the present system works for everyone, but I disagree with you profoundly and don't buy these arguments at all. As I said, the way the BBC is obliged to operate at the moment is preventing the Corporation from making the necessary changes the public wants and will soon come to expect.

What changes?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What changes?

The BBC gets its freedom, which will enable it to generate more income. People have the choice of whether or not to subscribe to the BBC. Taxpayers pay much less to supporting the broadcast industry and for public service provision.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The BBC gets its freedom, which will enable it to generate more income. People have the choice of whether or not to subscribe to the BBC. Taxpayers pay much less to supporting the broadcast industry and for public service provision.

You said

the way the BBC is obliged to operate at the moment is preventing the Corporation from making the necessary changes the public wants

I asked "what changes", and your reply doesn't match your first statement.

Where is your evidence that the public want the BBC to change its funding model, as this is what you are saying the public wants?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As you well know, the vast majority of this money goes to the BBC, and so whatever you may choose to call it, the TV licence is a mandatory subscription.

If the government wants to contribute to the broadcasting industry, it could do so directly rather than through the BBC.

I respect your view that the present system works for everyone, but I disagree with you profoundly and don't buy these arguments at all. As I said, the way the BBC is obliged to operate at the moment is preventing the Corporation from making the necessary changes the public wants and will soon come to expect.

Your wild claims that the public wants change and will soon come to expect it does not stand up to any scrutiny at all OB..

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...m-regulate-bbc

The public has given strong support to the BBC in one of the largest ever responses to a government public consultation, while showing huge indifference to the way it is governed.

The most important issue for respondents was content, with 150,744 (81%) indicating that the BBC is serving its audiences “well or very well”.

“Almost three quarters of responses (74 per cent) indicated that the BBC’s content is sufficiently high quality and distinctive from that of other broadcasters.”

“Three quarters of responses (76%) to the government consultation suggested that the BBC has been doing enough to deliver value for money.”

81% of responses (150,744) indicated that the BBC is serving its audiences “well or very well”.

“In terms of how we should pay for the BBC and whether the licence fee should be modernised, three fifths of responses felt that no changes to the current system were required.” In answer to the questions, “How should we pay for the BBC and how should the licence fee be modernised?” the majority of responses – 60% (110,863) – replied saying: “No change needed”. Just 15% (27,951) argued for reform and 4% (7,144) for a universal household levy.

“Once again the public have spoken loud and clear,” said a spokeswoman for the BBC Trust. “As they also told the trust last year, the public values the BBC for its high quality distinctive programming, they don’t want to see it diminished and they want it to retain its independence and funding through the licence fee. It’s very important that the government takes full account of this evidence when it decides the BBC’s future later this year.”

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You said
I asked "what changes", and your reply doesn't match your first statement.

Where is your evidence that the public want the BBC to change its funding model, as this is what you are saying the public wants?

Sorry, but your reply was too brief to be clear about the question you were asking.

I was specifically referring to the Ofcom decision not to allow the BBC to keep more shows on the i-Player for more than 30 days.There appears to be public demand for that, but Ofcom are concerned about the implications of that in terms of unfair competition. That would not be a problem if the BBC could operate more as a commercial company.

We might get a lot less political correctness as well if the BBC were not controlled so much by government.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Your wild claims that the public wants change and will soon come to expect it does not stand up to any scrutiny at all OB..

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...m-regulate-bbc

Of course the public want change. They want an i-Player that competes with the internet, and that is also what the BBC is striving for.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018...-34-year-olds/

So what it actually comes down to is your usual hobby horse .... the apparently imminent replacement of broadcast TV with on demand streaming services.

Ofcom is using regulations to force the BBC to lag behind commercial rivals, to prevent it using its massive financial muscle to dictate the whole marketplace, and as a result streaming services are developing more slowly in the U.K. than you would like.