TV licences

Cornucopia

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

So here you just justify making a subscription for iplayer.....:rotfl:

That doesn't sound particularly amusing - perhaps you can explain the joke?

If you survey most people without TV licences I think they would probably be in favour of a subscription for iPlayer, and some of them would probably even consider subscribing if they felt it offered them value for money.

If there is a ROFL moment, it is that the BBC has created their own "loophole"(*) through the development of iPlayer over the past several years.

(*) I use the word loophole because it is commonly misused but understood in this context, however the correct term is lacuna.

Cornucopia

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

Undoubtedly the BBC, the "competition" and technology have changed over the years but the license fee basis has not really changed significantly. It really no longer fits the bill that was it's original purpose funding THE public service broadcaster, programme making, the infrastructure, research and development, training of virtually all broadcasters and funding of the World Service.

I thought it still did those things. Not sure about the training angle - presumably the commercial sector can train their own people.

However whatever replaces it, and I guess it is becoming more and more likely that it will be replaced, needs to maintain the advantages and not sink to the lowest level of broadcasting.

I have yet to hear of a system that fits the bill as a replacement.

And yet, you accept that replacement is necessary?

There is a good argument that paying a big fee to watch live programmes on just other channels that are funded via subscription or advertising is iniquitous but an equally good one that we truly need an independent PSB for the good of us all, our image abroad, and output independent of commercial or editorial pressures deriving from the owner's interests.

There will always be pressures of one sort or another. It's why BBC1 doesn't show ballet at 7pm on a Saturday night, and see also Alan Yentob's recent scandal.

Make no mistake that the BBC's output overall is up with the best, if not the best, in the world and this is owing to several factors.

So it should be, given that it's the largest public broadcaster in the World. Not sure why we need it to be that, but there you go.

The charter basis, the stability of it's income stream, the limited pressure to be commercially successful, greater time actually broadcasting programmes and the lack of the need to edit around advertising breaks or the need to make mainly just popular programmes to maximise subscriptions.

You seem to be confusing what it is with what it could be in an alternative scenario that is yet to be imagined, still less implemented.

There have certainly been pressures mounting over recent years reducing quality to some extent and a far greater number of output streams as well as greater commercial income by secondary means.

Yes, although to a large extent, the BBC has embraced the dilution of resources and premium content across a larger number of services.

Taxation out of general government income and therefore more political interference iis to be avoided and deplored.

And yet people are bemoaning political interference now, under the Licence fee system. Sounds like some people will never be happy until the BBC is fuelled by magic fairy dust.

Advertising and subscription are bound to lead go a reduced quality owing to pressures (as well as programme interruptions) and a general dumming down of the more high quality programmes leading go an unbalanced output and less financial stability for innovation, support of fledgling broadcasters, and reduced technical developments that resulted from the BBC being world leaders.

They supported "fledgling broadcasters"? Why? What was the benefit to the Licence payer?

More generally, I don't think you can summarise the situation in 40 or 50 words. It is hugely complicated, and is also open to a huge amount of subjectivity about what is "good", what is "popular" and what is "critically acclaimed or world class". The one fact is that the multi-channel/multi-service genie is well and truly out, and is never going to go back into its bottle. The BBC has to recognise its limitations in this environment, and, personally I think its best hope for long-term survival is to be smaller, cheaper and better focused, whilst being given greater commercial flexibility to sell content overseas, including streaming directly to foreign subscribers.

Many may think that funding by advertising is free TV. It is not we ALL pay via our purchases whether we watch or not, without choice or knowledge - apart from boycott of purchases!

Obviously people DO have the choice to boycott heavily advertised brands. But I think your argument falls into the category of "popular misconception". There's no sound economic argument for a fixed cost of advertising being passed on to consumers. And given the world-wide presence of ad-funded media, you would have thought that one would exist... if it were true.

Subscription generally costs far more for much less.

You need to compare like-for-like, which in this case is pretty much impossible. Even you say "generally" which implies that it is not a fixed rule, but more like a characteristic of the existing market.

More generally, I find that its this kind of oft-repeated sound bite that leads to a diminution of debate. If you're not posting for this argument, here and now, what are you posting for?

We need to take care that this does not mean the demise of the BBC,

I thought it was "our BBC"? Or does that only apply as long as we want it, and not to its existence. Not that anyone is seriously calling for its abolition, anyway.

Must admit I do not wish to see TV consisting just of endless American shows or "popular" low quality programmes. We need to balance what we need rather than just what we like with a fair and independent way to fund our PSB.

Fair? So not what we have at the moment, then?

I do find there is an amount of fear-mongering in these arguments. I don't think it is credible that the BBC would not include lots of UK content whatever its eventual funding arrangements. Having said that, as a child of the 70s, I miss the smattering of high-quality US productions that used to feature on BBC1/2 prime-time, though I understand the political pressures that the BBC felt itself under to get rid of them. (Yet another piece of political pressure during the supposedly incorruptible Licence fee model).

(Note that we already have other psb broadcasting but it is not quite comparable )

So... if we added Local News and a few regional programmes to C4, and beefed up E4 with some more documentary-style programmes, what else would be needed before C4 group could be considered to be reasonably similar to the BBC?

Heedtheadvice

Hi Cornucopia, there's no joke but I roll on the floor laughing at the absurdity of the situation! Here we discuss changes to funding and the poster mearly shows how to exploit the gap you so eloquently describe getting most of the visual output for free, paid for by the license payers........

Heedtheadvice

Regarding the responses you make to my post showing that there is much more to the BBC than just the output we, or most of us watch, you really do seem to have missed that point. I maintain that the license fee was a sensible way to raise funding at the outset but is now outdated and a new system is required. Where is the discrepancy in that?

If there is to be another form of funding for the BBC it would be good if you could show how the benefits other than watching of popular output could be maintained; and that is not just the programmes of great quality (that are often not commercially popular) but also the educational programmes such as with the Open University tie ups and the BBC Academy that provides much needed support and funding to train broadcasters and future film makers?

Do you think subscription will maintain those?

Cornucopia

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

Hi Cornucopia, there's no joke but I roll on the floor laughing at the absurdity of the situation! Here we discuss changes to funding and the poster mearly shows how to exploit the gap you so eloquently describe getting most of the visual output for free, paid for by the license payers........

That's the law as it presently stands. Not sure there's much more to say about it than that, other than: it was the BBC that introduced iPlayer knowing it would form a "loophole" to the Licence System.

I do find it strange that people seem to think that there is something different about the Licence Fee compared to other taxes, in that most people are ambivalent to, or supportive of paying only the tax that one is due in every other area, but not this one.

Cornucopia

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

Regarding the responses you make to my post showing that there is much more to the BBC than just the output we, or most of us watch, you really do seem to have missed that point.

It's not a point I consider to be important. We can only watch one thing at a time, therefore most TV goes unwatched by any one individual. I don't see any particular reason to single out the BBC for some kind of favourable opinion in this respect, any more than I would do for any other broadcaster. (Perhaps you can explain the logic you wish to apply, here?)

I maintain that the license fee was a sensible way to raise funding at the outset but is now outdated and a new system is required. Where is the discrepancy in that?

There appeared to be a self-contradiction between conceding that a new system is required, but then saying that the Licence Fee is probably the best way to continue.

If there is to be another form of funding for the BBC it would be good if you could show how the benefits other than watching of popular output could be maintained; and that is not just the programmes of great quality (that are often not commercially popular) but also the educational programmes such as with the Open University tie ups and the BBC Academy that provides much needed support and funding to train broadcasters and future film makers?

Do you think subscription will maintain those?

It doesn't concern me either way. I don't believe it's necessary for there to be a publicly-funded broadcaster in the UK at all. If the Powers That Be can construct a workable subscription arrangement for the BBC, then I would be happy for that to happen.

We don't need a £5bn publicly-funded behemoth to provide training in other industries, so again, I'd like to seem some logic as to why broadcasting should be different. Even if you can show why broadcasting should be different in this respect, then the training facility should be Government-funded, not paid for by Licence Fee payers (because the benefit would seem to be for the industry/the country as a whole, not just the BBC and its viewers).

The bottom line, though, is that I don't believe there should be a State permit for watching TV. It's unfortunate that the BBC's funding is tied to that unreasonable constraint, and that needs to be sorted out. There are various ways of doing that, and I hope that the Government will employ common sense in determining how public-service broadcasting should continue in the UK (and I believe it should, though not necessarily at the scale that it presently does).

I also believe that the present system of enforcement is very poorly designed and managed - probably to the extent that it is unlawful as currently operated. I certainly wouldn't allow TV Licensing to enter my home for any reason, and I don't see why I should. I certainly wouldn't allow them to interview me under Caution without observing my rights, and without prior conclusive evidence of an offence having been committed. (Both of which they do at present).