TV Licence article Discussion

Steve059

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

You also don't need a licence if you only LISTEN to (rather than WATCH) TV! So, you can connect your freeview/satellite box to your hi-fi and listen to TV without a licence.

Visually impaired people do this and, no, it is not just a dispensation for visually impaired - it applies to everyone!

Please note that this is using a hi-fi and not a TV.

But aren't you still receiving a simultaneous TV broadcast, even though you're only processing the audio component?

Nilrem

Steve059 wrote: »

Please note that this is using a hi-fi and not a TV.

But aren't you still receiving a simultaneous TV broadcast, even though you're only processing the audio component?

IIRC as long as you've only got speakers hooked up to it, it counts as a radio whilst used for radio stations.

MiserlyMartin

Steve059 wrote: »

Please note that this is using a hi-fi and not a TV.

But aren't you still receiving a simultaneous TV broadcast, even though you're only processing the audio component?

No, if you are tuned to radio not TV. Delete all the TV channels from your presets leaving only the radio ones. And you can use the TV speakers, you don't have to hook a hi-fi up to satisfy the licencing. It would sound better on a hi-fi, but if you use a freeview tuner that is built into a TV then you will normally have to have the screen on to get any sound out of the phono plugs to the hifi anyway and this is fine too.

With listening to TV I think you still have to pay the licence (or part of) for that. Blind or not, as crazy as that is.

Nilrem

Cornucopia wrote: »

Okay, so how much do the BBC make from sales via BBC WW?

And where does this cost appear in the BBC WW accounts?

And why do they apparently pay their Directors over £1bn per year?

I'm guessing it appears in the BBC:WW's accounts under "operating costs", as buying content to resell is an operating cost.

For example in 2012 BBC:WW had a gross revenue of 1,085 million of which 150 went to "shared ventures", so 943 million. (a 15 second google bought up the results).

Of that they had an operating profit of 117 million - note that is for BBC:WW as it's profit (and a total profit after everything else for BBC:WW and BBC:WW alone of about 173 million)..

It had operating costs of 840 million - now in most business that would include buying in stock and overheads (such as payroll, and office space etc).
So it's fairly safe to assume that a large chunk of that operating costs went to actually buy in the content it was selling - or towards funding joint ventures (such as where BBC:WW co-funds shows to be shown on other channels, in return for the international rights...).

I don't know where you're getting that they paid their directors 1billion (especially given that is nearly the whole revenue of BBC:WW).
Unless of course their directors are the BBC, or "directors" has a specific meaning in accountancy terms that I'm not familiar with.

So BBC:WW as a company in itself looks to have a return of about 12% which is actually pretty good.
However as they buy content in from the BBC (one of their operating costs), it's fairly safe to assume that the BBC actually got a lot more than that headline profit figure, as the BBC would also be seeing some of what would be classed as a "cost" for BBC:WW as well.

It's pretty much the same as any group of companies.
A parent company, lets call it Acme Group, might own Acme Retail, Acme Shipping and Acme Gadgets.

Acme retail buys in it's stock from Acme Gadgets (who make them), then sells them on (to retail).
Acme Retail sees the cost of buying in the gadgets (content) as an operating cost, it also sees the cost of shipping them (via Acme Shipping) as a cost.
So it might report a 10% profit.
However Acme Group also sees the profits from Acme Gadgets and Acme Shipping.
Hence Acme Group might actually see a much higher profit, as by owning the factories and the shipping, it's keeping all the profit from the start of the production to it's final sale, in house*.
So in reality Acme Group is seeing the profit from each stage from production to retail, but the individual subsiduaries only see the profit from their part in the chain.

The other options instead of BBC:WW would be for the BBC to sit on content and never do anything with it, apart from screening it from time to time in the UK, or to have a third party act as it's international distributor and have them keeping the commission/agents fees from the sale.


*This is actually pretty close to how Amazon, Starbuck, Tesco, and Morrisons all work, they keep as much of the chain prior to final retail "in house" via subsidiaries as possible (in the case of Starbucks and supermarkets it also works as a handy tax dodge**), thus also keeping as much of the profit as possible (for example Amazon keep the profitable "distributor" share of book retail themselves, by getting books straight from the publisher cutting out the middlemen)


**If everything has to pass through a particular part of your retail chain, you can place that in a lower tax area (Starbucks iirc has an internal market for it's coffee, and the subsiduary that deals with that is based in Switzerland or something), or take advantage of particular tax breaks (IIRC Tesco used to take advantage of the fact payment processing was dealt with at a lower tax rate, so it would have on it's receipts a line that basically said "3% of the above goes to..for payment processing").

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

I'm guessing it appears in the BBC:WW's accounts under "operating costs", as buying content to resell is an operating cost.

But specifically, how much did they pay the BBC? What was the total benefit to the BBC (and to us) of having the BBC WW operation? Don't you think we should know?

So it's fairly safe to assume that a large chunk of that operating costs went to actually buy in the content it was selling...

But what are the actual numbers? Why do we have to deal in assumptions?

I don't know where you're getting that they paid their directors 1billion (especially given that is nearly the whole revenue of BBC:WW).

Directors remuneration:

£1.49bn in 2012, £1.37bn in 2011.

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2012/financials.aspx

It seems pretty obvious that these are the costs for the Director's salaries + benefits. It would seem that there is something odd going on - either with the actual money, or with the reporting.

It doesn't leave much room for mysterious, unaccounted payments to the BBC, though.

edit: It would appear that they have been careless in their reporting, the true directors figures are here: http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2012/governance/report-on-directors%27-remuneration.aspx

System

Stephenbw wrote: »

Then there are an awful lot of nations without any pride:D

I would be quite happy to pay a license fee for all the freeview channels directly to the broadcaster rather than via the ads that fund commercial TV.

I would love the option to just watch Freeview but I don't believe in being forced to fund one over all the others which is what the BBC currently does.

Stephenbw wrote: »

As for those who claim that they never watch or listen to anything broadcast by the BBC, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would choose to not watch something because it is on the BBC.

I choose the programmes I watch, not the channel.

You don't seem to understand that we can't watch anything unless we fund the BBC first, that's the whole point. I myself do not like the BBC because of its biased political leanings and it breaks its own Royal Charter at will with things like support for the climate zealots

System

ej8113 wrote: »

So does this mean we are effectively subsidising everyone else (The Whole World) to watch BBC TV - Radio - Web with a regressive tax on our citizens ... would I be right in assuming that
BBC Worldwide Limited also produces income for the BBC so why don't we see economies of scale reducing the licence fee ?

Not watching LIVE TV is a small price to pay to end this tyranny

You would be right. Check the length of the programming (or most of it) and its designed to fit in with its encrypted UKTV channels (advert time) so it takes money once again off those who fund it via the TV Licence.

Some people say the money BBC WW makes goes back into keeping the TV Licence down but how do you think BBC WW keeps buying out all those private companies

You will notice some of those defending the BBC here have lots of figures at hand too, very handy that;)

Andy_L

TheWise1 wrote: »

You will notice some of those defending the BBC here have lots of figures at hand too, very handy that;)

I know, its like they've got some super-secret computer system that gives them access to public domain information. Must make them stooges of the BBC

System

Andy_L wrote: »

I know, its like they've got some super-secret computer system that gives them access to public domain information. Must make them stooges of the BBC

Yes its perfectly normal for people to know all these figures about the BBC and be defending them all day. Strange thing though I don't see the same normal people doing it for other companies, just the BBC.

Oh and lets not forget the other websites they do this for the BBC on

Nilrem

Cornocopia:
For example in section 12 of the BBC:WW report it states under costs for distribution rights that they've added another 98 million worth, on top of over 270 million in ongoing costs for distribution rights*.
Although I'm no accountant, so I'm working off what I understand of how they're written, but to me an additional cost in distribution rights, suggests they've made a payment for those rights.
So if I'm even vaguely right that is something over 300 million from BBC:WW in distribution rights, going as a cost to somewhere - as the bulk of BBC:WW's rights are for BBC content, it's not too far fetched to suggest that a lot of that money seen by BBC:WW as a cost, is going to the BBC.

Andy_L wrote: »

I know, its like they've got some super-secret computer system that gives them access to public domain information. Must make them stooges of the BBC

I know it's like there is some vast set of computers interconnected by some form of network, like a spiders web that covers the globe.
Almost as if there were some sort of device, an engine if you like, that let you find stuff by searching with a simple query on that interconnected network

It's amazing what you can find with a quick google and a few minutes of reading, if you can get the search terms right (for example "BBC Worldwide Accounts" brings up a lot of figures, fast, and is less than 30 keypresses and four mouse clicks).


Thewise1, if you're interested in a subject, or even just pay attention when it comes up, you tend to pick up on things, and then with the use of the interweb thingy you can often quickly find information you vaguely remember reading
I've lost track of the number of old books and films I've managed to locate using the same method, and it often works out the same for facts and figures..


*If I'm reading it correctly, and I suspect the onhoing costs are likely because distribution rights for TV/Film/Books etc tend to be multi year deals with a payment upfront, and ongoing payments at certain landmarks.