Funding of the BBC

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

No, I used that as an example, although the reason I selected something that I care about is irrelevant. It's what the BBC need to do if it is to keep up. The Corporation has looked into the future and can see its own demise if it does not adapt auickly in the rapidly changing world of the media.

Contrary to what you and some others appear to think, I don't want the BBC to sink without trace. I want it to compete on equal terms with other platforms and I want the Beeb to be able to show off its wares to the world and make more money that way. The BBC is working within an outdated regulatory system, which needs to be brought into the current century. By subsidising the BBC, we are at the same time constraining its ability to perform and thrive.

But we aren’t subsidising the BBC. We are actually paying for it. The corporation’s revenue is something like £4bn a year and (from memory) only around 10% of that comes from commercial activity (though £400m revenue from mostly international activities is no small beer). Only the big US media corporations have more money to play with. The UK marketplace isn’t big enough to generate that much commercial revenue for any media business. The BBC simply isn’t going to get bigger or better operating on commercial terms because its domestic market can’t sustain it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

But we aren’t subsidising the BBC. We are actually paying for it. The corporation’s revenue is something like £4bn a year and (from memory) only around 10% of that comes from commercial activity (though £400m revenue from mostly international activities is no small beer). Only the big US media corporations have more money to play with. The UK marketplace isn’t big enough to generate that much commercial revenue for any media business. The BBC simply isn’t going to get bigger or better operating on commercial terms because its domestic market can’t sustain it.

I think you are playing with words. The BBC is benefiting from receiving income from people who might otherwise choose not to pay it. This is why ITV, Sky and others think it is so unfair.

You seem to believe that if the UK population was seemlessly transferred to a subscription instead of paying the licence fee, hordes of people would choose to then ditch that subscription. I disagree profoundly - the vast majority would go for the status quo and would continue to pay. Any shortfall of income by this method could be made up and even exceeded through maximisation of revenues through a beefed up BBC i-Player made available worldwide by subscription and perhaps even with advertising options, and by being able to involve itself in other commercial activities which the government scale back under the present system. Your 10% figure is what the Beeb is earning now, even with the restrictions placed upon it. There is ample scope to grow that figure with the freedoms that a subscription model would provide.

I think you are under-valuing the BBC's potential massively, and I say again, it is unreasonable to foist the payment of non-essential services on people who do not want them.

There are no restrictions on BBC Worldwide or BBC Studios, except that they are forbidden to use licence fee money to fund commercial projects. They are self sustaining and they return cash to the mothership to supplement the licence fee income. What other restrictions on the BBC’s commercial activities are you aware of that I’m missing?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

There are no restrictions on BBC Worldwide or BBC Studios, except that they are forbidden to use licence fee money to fund commercial projects. They are self sustaining and they return cash to the mothership to supplement the licence fee income. What other restrictions on the BBC’s commercial activities are you aware of that I’m missing?

Ofcom has been the reason why Project Kangaroo was abandoned and it continues to stymie efforts by the BBC to behave in a more commercial manner.

You dismiss on demand programming as being 'my obsession', but it's the way of the future. Anyone can see this. You can find references to it almost anywhere you look. The latest article I have read is here:

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018...ming-services/

If the BBC was allowed to join with ITV and Channel 4 to set up an internet site along Netflix lines, it could make a lot of money out of it. Amazon spend about £5.5bn on content. The BBC could spend more of its £5.14 bn on content if it was given the freedom to do so. It currently spends only £2.7bn on content, which is abysmal, but due largely to government interference. Even with present levels of spending on content, if ITV and Channel 4 spend was added, imagine how attractive such a site would be globally. You are quite wrong when you say that the BBC cannot compete against global players like Amazon. Only the government is holding them back.

That alone is one good reason why the BBC should no longer be tied to politicians through the licence fee system.

It is not the only reason, of course. For example, its BBC Worldwide operations were cut back not long ago and you will be aware that the BBC was told it had to let other channels benefit from being able to take over its popular shows. Interference such as this is debilitating for any operation. Politicians need to give the Beeb its freedom and just butt out.

[TheDaddy]

Well well, turns out the t.v. licence is the most hated of bills according to a radio report I heard last night, can't say I'm surprised.

I've done away with my telly, I'm getting threatening letters and all kinds of bs from those licencing parasites, they've been round a few times and should I find myself unfortunate enough to encounter them face to face I'm wondering if I'm obliged to give them any personal details, I'm okay with them snooping round the old drum but I don't want to give them any personal information if I can help it, obviously they have none at the moment, their letters and little cards are addressed to the legal occupier.

[heero_yuy]

They have no more authority than a double glazing salesman. You are not obliged to give them any details or allow entry to your property.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Well well, turns out the t.v. licence is the most hated of bills according to a radio report I heard last night, can't say I'm surprised.

I've done away with my telly, I'm getting threatening letters and all kinds of bs from those licencing parasites, they've been round a few times and should I find myself unfortunate enough to encounter them face to face I'm wondering if I'm obliged to give them any personal details, I'm okay with them snooping round the old drum but I don't want to give them any personal information if I can help it, obviously they have none at the moment, their letters and little cards are addressed to the legal occupier.

Don't give them any personal details. Only if they have your name can they take you to court.

Also you don't have to great them entry.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

They have no more authority than a double glazing salesman. You are not obliged to give them any details or allow entry to your property.

My pal was cleaning his guns a few years back when they knocked, he refused them entry so they ran of and got a police officer, who he allowed entry whilst leaving said parasites on the door step, the police officer agreed with my friend and told them to sling their hooks as he had good reason for refusing entry, incidentally he didn't have a tv either

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

Don't give them any personal details. Only if they have your name can they take you to court.

Also you don't have to great them entry.

I have nothing to fear, I'm not going out of my way to let them in though, it it happens our paths cross in the garden I'm okay granting access but they're not getting anything else

[heero_yuy]

Unless you explicitly with draw it anybody (like the postie, meter reader etc) has a right to approach your front door by the path that you provide. They have no right to deviate from that path and if you state, in writing, that they may not pass the boundary of your property they commit an offence if they do.

You can also withdraw that right on the spot and they are then obliged to leave immediately. That was the right the police officer was enforcing for your friend.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Well well, turns out the t.v. licence is the most hated of bills according to a radio report I heard last night, can't say I'm surprised.

I've done away with my telly, I'm getting threatening letters and all kinds of bs from those licencing parasites, they've been round a few times and should I find myself unfortunate enough to encounter them face to face I'm wondering if I'm obliged to give them any personal details, I'm okay with them snooping round the old drum but I don't want to give them any personal information if I can help it, obviously they have none at the moment, their letters and little cards are addressed to the legal occupier.

They don't care if you've got rid of your TV, they won't believe you until they see proof. They will still come after you for your PC/laptop/tablet/mobile phone or anything else you're able to view live content on.

The threatening letters won't stop either, until you call them and tell them that you don't need a licence, but then they will have your details to send you threatening letters in the future. And they will tell you that they may send someone round to verify this.

[Carth]

Many many years ago when I became single again (lol) I got rid of the TV, but then started receiving letters threatening and pleading etc etc.

In the end I wrote saying that: I was from a planet with an unpronounceable (to you) name in a Galaxy you could only just see.
I was here as part of an advanced scout mission to decide whether Earth and its inhabitants were worthy of co-operating with, or destroying. From my learnings over the past 6 months, I strongly suggest that a missing TV license is the least of your worries.

I never heard from them again

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think you are playing with words. The BBC is benefiting from receiving income from people who might otherwise choose not to pay it. This is why ITV, Sky and others think it is so unfair.

You seem to believe that if the UK population was seemlessly transferred to a subscription instead of paying the licence fee, hordes of people would choose to then ditch that subscription. I disagree profoundly - the vast majority would go for the status quo and would continue to pay. Any shortfall of income by this method could be made up and even exceeded through maximisation of revenues through a beefed up BBC i-Player made available worldwide by subscription and perhaps even with advertising options, and by being able to involve itself in other commercial activities which the government scale back under the present system. Your 10% figure is what the Beeb is earning now, even with the restrictions placed upon it. There is ample scope to grow that figure with the freedoms that a subscription model would provide.

I think you are under-valuing the BBC's potential massively, and I say again, it is unreasonable to foist the payment of non-essential services on people who do not want them.

Even the commercial channels don't want advertising on the BBC as it would hit their income; there simply isn't enough to go round. This has become even more so as young people abandon TV in favour of the internet and, subsequently, advertising aimed at them is switched to the the net.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Even the commercial channels don't want advertising on the BBC as it would hit their income; there simply isn't enough to go round. This has become even more so as young people abandon TV in favour of the internet and, subsequently, advertising aimed at them is switched to the the net.

Exactly!

[Sephiroth]

I see no reasonable alternative to the TV Licence model.

The BBC is the equivalent of a TV backstop. With a little less anti-Brexit bias, they provide a good news service, uninterrupted by adverts. The provide good drama and music and I watch the BBC more than other channels (except perhaps Movies for Men when it's WW2).

Given that the Licence is the law, all that has to be done is for BBC to manage expenditure properly.