Funding of the BBC

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

You know decriminalisation isn’t as simple as it seems - the burden of proof is lower in a civil court, which actually makes it easier to go after non-payers, even if it carries the risk of increasing non-payment in the first place.

No matter what the BBC proposes ahead of charter renewal it simply isn’t going to disappear behind a paywall. It is a mass-audience broadcaster like ITV, which as everyone knows, does not charge a subscription. Subscriptions are fine for niche audience products but too many people simply aren’t prepared to pay for their TV. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and the BBC is not going to volunteer to relinquish its public funding. The licence may no longer be the means by which the BBC proposes to collect that funding, but whatever they come up with is going to be a million miles away from an encrypted, ITV Digital style service.

They are already paying for it, Chris - compulsorily through the licence fee.

The licence fee has had its day, and I think Boris Johnson's government is determined to do something about it, as the link I provided indicates.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They are already paying for it, Chris - compulsorily through the licence fee.

The licence fee has had its day, and I think Boris Johnson's government is determined to do something about it, as the link I provided indicates.

I’m aware the licence fee actually pays for the tv service. . As you say, however, it is compulsory, under pain of prosecution, and further it is, and always has been, styled as a licence to operate receiving equipment rather than as a payment for service (in fact the wording on the licence itself goes to great pains to remind the holder that the licence comes with no guarantee of service ... if you’re in a transmission blackspot, tough. No refunds, no cheerful service tech in a branded van to come and fix it). Don’t underestimate the subliminal effect that has on people who are asked whether they’re prepared to pay for their TV or not.

[ntluser]

It will be really interesting to see how this plays out.

The licence fee was to pay for your right to receive broadcasts either from the BBC or elsewhere.

If the BBC decide to adopt a subscription model to raise their funds how does that affect our right to watch the other channels ie. Channels 4 & 5 and ITV?

And what about subscribers to Virgin & Sky who currently get the BBC channels as part of their TV packages? How are they affected? And how will Virgin and Sky be affected under this new BBC model?

And does this mean that in common with the commercial channels, the BBC will start broadcasting advertisements?

The can of worms has truly been opened.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They are already paying for it, Chris - compulsorily through the licence fee.

The licence fee has had its day, and I think Boris Johnson's government is determined to do something about it, as the link I provided indicates.

Just you wait till the super economist sees that, you'll be in deep doodoo....

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by ntluser

It will be really interesting to see how this plays out.

The licence fee was to pay for your right to receive broadcasts either from the BBC or elsewhere.

If the BBC decide to adopt a subscription model to raise their funds how does that affect our right to watch the other channels ie. Channels 4 & 5 and ITV?

And what about subscribers to Virgin & Sky who currently get the BBC channels as part of their TV packages? How are they affected? And how will Virgin and Sky be affected under this new BBC model?

And does this mean that in common with the commercial channels, the BBC will start broadcasting advertisements?

The can of worms has truly been opened.

It's a good point you make about the license is so you can use your tv . No mention of it being used to provide the BBC funding to pay grossly overpaid TV presenters or indeed director generas. The BBC should be ORDERED to fund itself by whatever way it wants,i.e adverts or subscription. It should not be forcing everyone to pay for them regardless of whether they want to watch their programs or not.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ntluser

It will be really interesting to see how this plays out.

The licence fee was to pay for your right to receive broadcasts either from the BBC or elsewhere.

If the BBC decide to adopt a subscription model to raise their funds how does that affect our right to watch the other channels ie. Channels 4 & 5 and ITV?

And what about subscribers to Virgin & Sky who currently get the BBC channels as part of their TV packages? How are they affected? And how will Virgin and Sky be affected under this new BBC model?

And does this mean that in common with the commercial channels, the BBC will start broadcasting advertisements?

The can of worms has truly been opened.

The money goes to the BBC - at least the bulk of it. The rest is subterfuge.

If (or when) the BBC introduces a subscription charge, the other channels will be unaffected, as they get most of their money via commercials. Any additional monies for public service broadcasting can be paid to broadcasters direct from the public purse.

As far as Sky and Virgin subscribers are concerned, they will also have to pay a subscription for the BBC if that's the route Auntie takes, although this could be collected with the subscription to Sky or Virgin Media as with any other channel.

As to whether the Beeb will also have a free 'with ads' option, I guess that remains to be seen, although given they will probably wish to have their programmes broadcast via transmitters while the other channels do, and a subscription would not work for that.

I think the choice could well be between TV channels with commercials or online with a subscription (but perhaps also a free with ads option).

As for the radio stations and the BBC website, I think both will incorporate advertisements in the first instance at least.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

It's a good point you make about the license is so you can use your tv . No mention of it being used to provide the BBC funding to pay grossly overpaid TV presenters or indeed director generas. The BBC should be ORDERED to fund itself by whatever way it wants,i.e adverts or subscription. It should not be forcing everyone to pay for them regardless of whether they want to watch their programs or not.

The license is to watch live TV as it is broadcast, not to use your TV.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Nice one, OB and Papa.

iPlayer sits ready as a vehicle that suits subscription and a News Channel can be an add-on fee.

The concept of the BBC from early days is no longer applicable.

Mind you, the woke left will find an outlet and if that's broadcast by another subscription model company, political popularity will be easily measured!

Do you mean like the Fox News channel that closed down in the UK due to lack of viewers?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you mean like the Fox News channel that closed down in the UK due to lack of viewers?

Obtuse as usual and nothing to do with the topic at hans.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Obtuse as usual and nothing to do with the topic at hans.

Political popularity is easily measured...

Originally Posted by Mythica

The license is to watch live TV as it is broadcast, not to use your TV.

Not quite - it’s a licence to use equipment to receive broadcasts, not to watch them. You need the licence even if you only use a PVR to record broadcasts for later viewing. (Side note, back in the old days, you were breaking the law if you had a black and white licence for your black and white TV, but also had a video recorder, because the video recorder was receiving and recording colour signals).

It also has an additional stipulation covering reception of “broadcast” via the internet, but uniquely this clause applies only to the BBC and not to any or all TV broadcasts.

[downquark1]

This will be a disaster they will just add it to some mandatory tax and you'll be even more forced to pay it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by downquark1

This will be a disaster they will just add it to some mandatory tax and you'll be even more forced to pay it.

The link I provided clearly states that the pressure by the government is for a subscription service, although I think advertising is likely to be part of the solution.

[heero_yuy]

I could see a freeview service with ads and product placement but a limited output and a premium subscription service of the better(?) output.

That would need to earn it's place in the delivery spectrum so no woke nonsense. The lovvies would hate it.

[papa smurf]

Break it up and sell it off.