Funding of the BBC

[OLD BOY]

This could be the last decade of the licence fee, and there is a real possibility that this could be replaced by a subscription system following the next review.

The main reason I believe this was not introduced this year was because it would be nigh on impossible to work out who had and had not paid a subscription for their radios, and of course those relying on just an aerial to receive their services would also present the same problem. Of course, at the same time it would not be possible to switch off the delivery of those services, even if you did not know who had not paid.

However, in the future, technology will be different. Both radio and TV will be delivered over the internet, although how quickly that will transpire and replace existing free to air broadcasting remains to be seen. Some academics are saying this will happen within 15 years, but this may underestimate the problems that will be encountered switching many people over from their outdated equipment. The issues for the elderly and the poor are particularly acute.

In the meantime, the first problem is to consider how we deal with free licences for the over-75s. The BBC is now consulting on this. My preferred option would be simply to stop issuing new free licences, but allow existing recipients to keep going for the remainder of their years. The problem with that is that it would cost the Beeb a bomb in the early years, affecting their ability to provide their existing range of programming (according to them).

My next preferred option would be to means test those who wish to apply or retain the existing benefit they receive. There are many people who are receiving the free licence who have no need of this benefit at the same time as phasing it out as above. But is there a simple way of means testing?

One way or another, these costs have to be reduced, so perhaps the easiest method is to phase it out over three years - down to 75% in the first year, 50% in the second, 25% in the third, followed by no subsidy. At the same time, the BBC could ensure that no new arrangements for this group would be payable until aged 80.

It's a difficult one, and the BBC is consulting on the best arrangement that should be explored. What do you think?

https://www.a516digital.com/2018/11/...future-of.html

I prefer the licence system. If it goes subscription it will go out of the ball park..

[denphone]

It will be twice as much as it is now IMO if it goes the subscription model way.

I have just moved in to a property that had no chain and it had been stood empty for over a year nearly. The amount of threatening letters from the License folk in that time, could they not see the house was unoccupied, the sold sign on the front lawn?

We did not get a license until we actually moved in - some decoration was needed but in that time from when the purchase was complete, until we moved in we received another threatening letter.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

It will be twice as much as it is now IMO if it goes the subscription model way.

That is not necessarily so, Den. The BBC can make money in other ways, and this will easily compensate for the small numbers who will opt not to subscribe.

It is an antiquated system and well overdue for an overhaul. It is not fair to charge everyone for an entertainment service that some do not choose to access.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

I have just moved in to a property that had no chain and it had been stood empty for over a year nearly. The amount of threatening letters from the License folk in that time, could they not see the house was unoccupied, the sold sign on the front lawn?

We did not get a license until we actually moved in - some decoration was needed but in that time from when the purchase was complete, until we moved in we received another threatening letter.

Receiving threatening letters is OTT in my opinion as surely they can by some technical mean know if someone is using a TV.

---------- Post added at 12:14 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That is not necessarily so, Den. The BBC can make money in other ways, and this will easily compensate for the small numbers who will opt not to subscribe.

There are many in this country who think we are already paying enough each month and your plans would raise the cost significantly IMO

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I prefer the licence system. If it goes subscription it will go out of the ball park..

If the BBC keep making good quality programmes, they will have nothing to worry about. As part of the deal, the government should allow the Beeb to venture into areas that it is not allowed to at present (eg premium TV for first run shows, advertising as an alternative for those who do not wish to subscribe, etc).

The whole arrangement needs to be far more flexible, and with government grants available to all TV services providing good quality public service broadcasting.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is an antiquated system and well overdue for an overhaul. It is not fair to charge everyone for an entertainment service that some do not choose to access.

Sometimes in life OB one has to think of the large majority rather then a very small minority don't you think so?.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

Receiving threatening letters is OTT in my opinion as surely they can by some technical mean know if someone is using a TV.

---------- Post added at 12:14 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------



There are many in this country who think we are already paying enough each month and your plans would raise the cost significantly IMO

As I said, the cost does not have to rise if the government gave the Beeb more flexibility.

As for the technical means of knowing whether those TV detectors can actually identify people watching TV without a licence, that is a matter for speculation!

The problem with subscription is the BBC does a lot of real public service broadcasting too. BBC News obviously, BBC World Service to an extent, but all the local radio and local production work. The BBC is the default platform for any national or local events that need coverage and I am not sure how that would work with a subscription service since these things are meant to be there for everyone.

I also think we want to protect and promote British artists and the BBC along with the National Theatre and other such schemes do that really well. So many of the internationally successful British artists, from musicians to writers, were given their first exposure to the world via the BBC. I don't want Britain to become a side market of America.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As I said, the cost does not have to rise if the government gave the Beeb more flexibility.

The government has reduced the BBC funding so is certainly no friend of the BBC as it stands.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As for the technical means of knowing whether those TV detectors can actually identify people watching TV without a licence, that is a matter for speculation!

We are in 2018 OB not the 1960's.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

The problem with subscription is the BBC does a lot of real public service broadcasting too. BBC News obviously, BBC World Service to an extent, but all the local radio and local production work. The BBC is the default platform for any national or local events that need coverage and I am not sure how that would work with a subscription service since these things are meant to be there for everyone.

I also think we want to protect and promote British artists and the BBC along with the National Theatre and other such schemes do that really well. So many of the internationally successful British artists, from musicians to writers, were given their first exposure to the world via the BBC. I don't want Britain to become a side market of America.

There is nothing to stop the government continuing to fund public service broadcasting. This is not an argument against having a subscription instead of the licence fee.

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Sometimes in life OB one has to think of the large majority rather then a very small minority don't you think so?.

I don't think it is any way justifiable to charge people for an entertainment service they never use. Why would you even think that was fair?

As I said before, there are other means of revenue generation that could plug any gap between money collected via subscriptions and the money currently collected through the licence fee.

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

The government has reduced the BBC funding so is certainly no friend of the BBC as it stands.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------



We are in 2018 OB not the 1960's.

There is no doubt that many Conservatives do not like the way the BBC operates at present.

So you truly believe those OTT detector horns on top of the vans are actually capable of detecting anything? I think they are there to intimidate!

[heero_yuy]

Quote from OLD BOY:


So you truly believe those OTT detector horns on top of the vans are actually capable of detecting anything?

There was a time back in the days of valve and CRT TV's that it was theoretically possible to detect from a distance if a TV was running. These days a TV can be used for many purposes other than watching live TV.

Anyway remote sensing "evidence" is inadmissable in a UK court of law.

Bear in mind that the "TV" could esaily be a laptop or mobile using a streaming service.

TVL compare their database of licences against that of the electoral register etc. and their computers send the same circular sequence of threatening letters to the difference addresses.

I think they are there to intimidate!

Naturally. Most people haven't a clue about technology. Being an electronics engineer I know what is and is not possible.

Quote from emwatch:


the radiation from your TV cannot be effectively screened. It travels through any material, including your body, with ease.

But fortunately it diminishes rapidly, which is why it has practically become unmeasurable at a distance of two feet.

[Taf]

the radiation from your TV cannot be effectively screened. It travels through any material, including your body, with ease.

But fortunately it diminishes rapidly, which is why it has practically become unmeasurable (sic) at a distance of two feet.

The "radiation" they used to detect came from the aerial, they detected an active local oscillator. These do not exist in digital TV's. Picking up screen signals is easier than you think, hence so much security shielding around military commcens, including isolated mains lines and earth points.

I think we'll end up paying a "BBC Tax", then after a few years the government, still strapped for cash, will introduce a tax covering all forms of signal reception. With a name such as Digital Access Tax.

[Ramrod]

I got a nasty threatening letter at one of my business premises yesterday. No doubt that'll go on now for the next few years like it usually does