BBC licence fee should be scrapped, says thinktank - The Guardian

drc

From the Guardian;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/02/bbc-licence-free-scrapped-thinktank

BBC licence fee should be scrapped, says thinktank

• Mark Sweney

• guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 August 2010 12.40 BST

The Adam Smith Institute advises replacing the £145 annual fee with a voluntary subscription service The £3.5bn annual BBC licence fee should be scrapped and replaced with a voluntary subscription service, initially charging £145 a year, according to a report by the thinktank the Adam Smith Institute.
The report, Global Player or Subsidy Junkie? Decision time for the BBC, reckons that the corporation could be offered a "transitional guarantee" of income from 2012 when viewers would first be told they did not have to pay the licence fee any more and could move to the voluntary subscription model.
An interim annual fee of £145 – the current level of the licence fee – would be charged up to 2015, the report proposes, after which BBC services would become subscription-only.
"Over a transitional period, subscriptions would replace licences as they fall due," the report said. "During this period, BBC would retain all its current privileges with a fixed sum allocated by government to cover possible licence fee losses. This should ensure little change in current output over the interim phase."
The report argues that moving away from the licence fee will benefit the wider media industry and force the BBC to become a more internationally-focused operation.
David Graham, the report's author and a former BBC producer who now runs the media consultancy Attentional, said that the BBC "invests heavily in opinion management and capturing UK regulators rather than looking outwards towards the international media market".
"Continuing with the current funding model means justified hostility from the rest of the industry, contraction and decline for the BBC," he added. "The new government seems ready to rethink fundamentals. I hope this paper will help to encourage a serious debate, at a critical time, about a very important British institution."
The report said that the licence fee should be scrapped because it "criminalises poor people"; is an enforced payment system for services that are available elsewhere for free through advertiser funding; and that it makes the corporation beholden to a "crude commercial model based on mass-audience advertising".
"The hostility of its competitors is justified," added the report. "Continued commitment to subsidy via the licence fee will mean contraction and decline."
The report argues that the government needs "take back responsibility" for defining what is core public service content, that which the BBC should focus on which would "cost a fraction of the current licence fee". Core public service content would include news, but not entertainment genres or most documentary and factual output. Monitoring of "public service" would come from a specialist unit in government.
In terms of the licence fee the report argues that the BBC would, over a "limited period of time", allow licence fee payers to "either lapse or switch to voluntary subscription".
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email [EMAIL="editor@mediaguardian.co.uk"]editor@mediaguardian.co.uk[/EMAIL] or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.
• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

nearlynew

At £12 a month you get a lot more value for your money from your licence fee than any commercial broadcaster has to offer.

Running_Horse

All broadcasting should be pay per view; the technology is there.

I suspect most of us would find more fulfilling things to do than watching endless soaps and American cop show imports.

Wookster

nearlynew wrote: »

At £12 a month you get a lot more value for your money from your licence fee than any commercial broadcaster has to offer.

Dam right.

The BBC is one of the last great independent sources of news (aside of Channel 4 which is better). Without the licence fee, we'd end up with Fox TV UK style.

That is not to say that there aren't serious problems in the way the BBC is run.

wymondham

I've never understood the license fee. It's supposedly due as a result of you having the ability to receive general broadcasts etc, yet the revenue goes to a single organisation - does not seem to be a fair system!

In this day and age, everything should be pay per view, then lets see how many channels survive re-broadcasting the same old rubbish. Every broadcaster deserves the same level playing field.

The license fee is of a bygone era that can't stand up much longer I would suspect.

As an aside I strongly object to being forced to pay for the huge wages of the likes of Jonathan Ross etc, whilst they start to repeat shows in the same week, and make you pay more should you actually choose to watch 'good' repeats (gold)

nearlynew

Pay per view would be great if it was applied to individual programmes rather than channels.

Until then, the BBC as a whole represents far better value at £12 a month than any other broadcaster.

JonnyBravo

Wookster wrote: »

Dam right.

The BBC is one of the last great independent sources of news (aside of Channel 4 which is better). Without the licence fee, we'd end up with Fox TV UK style.

That is not to say that there aren't serious problems in the way the BBC is run.

Spot on. The demise of the licence fee would bring about a far inferior BBC.
Channel 4 news is great but it's produced by ITV now.

wymondham

nearlynew wrote: »

Pay per view would be great if it was applied to individual programmes rather than channels.

Until then, the BBC as a whole represents far better value at £12 a month than any other broadcaster.

yes, it has to be individual programmes. £12 is only good value if you watch BBC, otherwise it's like being forced to pay Sainsburys a monthly tax when you only shop at Tesco, simply because you like to go shopping - makes no sense!

Since the BBC receive the money from the fee, it should only be payable if you watch/listen to BBC content. You should have the option to opt out.

wymondham

nearlynew wrote: »

At £12 a month you get a lot more value for your money from your licence fee than any commercial broadcaster has to offer.

no, you don't pay for a commercial broadcaster, so it is poorer value.

Many years ago I would have agreed the BBC was superior, but not these days.

nearlynew

wymondham wrote: »

no, you don't pay for a commercial broadcaster, so it is poorer value.

Many years ago I would have agreed the BBC was superior, but not these days.

I don't watch a lot of TV but when I do find something I want to watch I'm always glad when I find it's on the BBC so I don't have to put up with the adverts every 10 minutes.

michaels

Which did make me think - surely Sky could offer premium ad-free versions of each channel that cost more (the same amount lost by having no ads) and let the market decide?

nearlynew wrote: »

I don't watch a lot of TV but when I do find something I want to watch I'm always glad when I find it's on the BBC so I don't have to put up with the adverts every 10 minutes.