Aaron.TV post_id=63476 time= user_id=1940 Wrote:Before people get carried away, this will depend heavily on who wins the next General Election - not sure why the Guardian article doesn’t mention that tbh.
Whoever is leading the Conservatives by then will probably make abolishing the licence fee a manifesto commitment, Labour will probably pledge to retain it, and then people can make up their own minds up at the ballot box.
Ultimately the License Fee is going to have to go at some point, it's not appropriate way of collecting revenue in the 2020's. No matter who wins the next election it'll go.
The decision that needs to be made is what to replace it with and what form the BBC will take afterwards.
The license fee isn't the only way to fund it... subscription isn't an option if they want to keep it a public service. There are other funding mechanisms and other countries have come up with other solutions
BBCMeridian post_id=63577 time= user_id=2083 Wrote:I know it's not 2002 anymore but still there's no need for the BBC to have two separate channels, the idea of the name Children's BBC is to represent young children and older children, for me the name CBeebies doesn't mean anything it doesn't have it's distinct purpose as the the merged CBBC once did.
You don't have kids do you?
Cbeebies is one of the most important public service things the BBC does, and if there would be absolute uproar if it was touched. Previous listener/viewer battles like the ones to save 6 Music, Radio 4 LW and |BBC Three would be nothing in comparison
Sorry for posting a 3rd post in a row but I'm playing catch up!
One thing to remember about any time politicians complain about or threaten thr BBC is that most MPs need the BBC, in particular BBC Local Radio. They aren't going to get time on a national news programme unless they're in some scandal, they aren't going to appear on Heart or Greatest Hits Radio and most local newspapers are in a terrible state.
They like and need to appear on local radio and regional TV and the BBC gives them that. There's no Netflix Radio Norfolk
Without wishing to reignite the children and two channels question, but the government's decision to not allow most advertising aimed at children effectively took the money away from any commercial provision beyond cheap, mainly repeated or imported programmes. It is entirely the thing that a public service broadcaster should be doing given what happened.
To my mind, these days, eleven national radio channels (as per their DAB Multiplex) is not necessarily what is needed.
Debate is needed as to what is wanted and desirable - in a world of plenty in a lot of areas a taxpayer funded BBC that tries to compete in all areas is not necessarily the answer.
Jon post_id=63607 time= user_id=1050 Wrote:Basically the BBC funding debate is going to be the new Brexit, isn’t it?
Beebxit?
Radio_man post_id=63562 time= user_id=1477 Wrote:There are two institutions left in the UK that the Conservative party would dearly love to see privatised and/or abolished - the BBC and the NHS.
Even suggesting touching the NHS is still seen as political suicide (even though the NHS in England is being privatised from within, despite it still being 'free' at the point of access), but the BBC is obviously now seen as fair game.
The suggestions from Dorries that the BBC should have ignored the recent party-gate stories because they are undermining the Prime Minister by reporting on it, is obviously ludicrous. We are not Russia or China.
As for future cuts due to the license fee being frozen, there's no 'behind the scenes' 'waste' left to cut, especially in news. The UK News Channel operation is already part time, operating independently for just 11 hours a day. Anymore simulcasting with World News will compromise the editorial output of both channels. Political programmes on BBC 1 & 2 have also been slashed to the bare minimum since 2015.
As for drama/entertainment, will we be seeing repeats on BBC 1 & 2 regularly during 8 - 10pm throughout the year, including drama repeats at 9pm as there's no money to comission anything new? That will then lead to the "the BBC is not worth it / what am I paying for / time to abolish the BBC" etc, which no doubt is all part if the plan to soften up the public for an eventual BBC break-up/sell-off
Voters will face stark choices in May 2024.
Of course, this is a Broadcasting forum, but I will just say that the "Conservatives want to sell off the NHS" nonsense is just that. Nonsense. The NHS has been under Tory control for two thirds of its 76 years. They had plenty of time to sell it off. They never did.
The BBC though is a different kettle of fish. There are solid arguments for or against. I'm against selling it off but would be open to a "Broadcasting levy" that would include broadband maintenance and rollout. Stuff like that.
Brekkie post_id=63624 time= user_id=976 Wrote:Jon post_id=63607 time= user_id=1050 Wrote:Basically the BBC funding debate is going to be the new Brexit, isn’t it?
Beebxit?
The BBC Referendum on the Tuesday 1st March is your chance to vote to keep or abolish the license fee.
If you're aged 18 or over by 1st March and are entitled and registered to vote, polling stations will be open from 7am to 10pm on 1st March.
I could see this ending with a compromise of the licence fee going, to be replaced by general taxation and the BBC taking some limited advertising.
Other countries' national broadcasters have advertising without it affecting editorial control, and given the junctions full of trailers we currently get I'm not sure it's objectively a worse position than the status quo
Generally it's advertising between programmes rather than during, and occassionally there are rules which exclude advertising during certain time periods (i.e. primetime) or certain types of shows.
One option might be sponsorship and/or product placement rather than traditional advertising. That may have less impact on commercial rivals, but therefore likely raise less revenue too. Considering in sport especially the sponsor of the event will normally get a couple of name checks during the broadcast they might as well pay for it instead.
Steve in Pudsey post_id=63630 time= user_id=942 Wrote:I could see this ending with a compromise of the licence fee going, to be replaced by general taxation and the BBC taking some limited advertising.
Other countries' national broadcasters have advertising without it affecting editorial control, and given the junctions full of trailers we currently get I'm not sure it's objectively a worse position than the status quo
As mentioned by others I think those most likely to object to BBC having advertising are it's competitors, be that TV or radio. It would like hit advertising revenues for the like of ITV, Sky, Global, and all the others. Perhaps ironically some of those who criticise the BBC for it's licence fee, and generally 'doing stuff that it could do' (but even when given the chance often doesn't).
Aaron.TV post_id=63540 time= user_id=1940 Wrote:Indeed.
Abolishing the licence fee is a major policy decision, and as far as I’m aware, it was not in the Government’s 2019 manifesto.
The current Government (and, indeed, the current DCMS SoS) can say whatever they wish, but ultimately it’s up to whoever is elected in 2024 to make the decision.
As I said previously, I expect the abolition of the licence fee to be a Conservative Party manifesto pledge in 2024 - although even this depends on who actually leads them into this election.
Labour will probably pledge to retain the licence fee or propose an alternative in their manifesto.
So ultimately, the electorate will be making this decision on the BBC’s future at the next election, and it certainly is not a done deal.
At the last election, Boris Johnson stated he was looking at abolishing the license fee. It was not in the manifesto that I can see.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/201...ee-for-bbc
Quote:Asked why he would not get rid of TV licence fees, Johnson said: “At this stage we are not planning to get rid of all licence fees, though I am certainly looking at it. I’m under pressure not to extemporise policy on the hoof.
“But you have to ask yourself whether that kind of approach to funding a TV media organisation still makes sense in the long term given the way other media organisations manage to fund themselves.
“The system of funding out of effectively a general tax bears reflection. How long can you justify a system whereby everybody who has a TV has to pay to fund a particular set of TV and radio channels?”
When later pressed on whether he wanted to withdraw public support for the BBC altogether, Johnson replied: “The BBC is not going to be privatised.”
He added: “What I said is that I think the licence fee needs to be argued for. We live in an age when lots of media organisations have to compete. The BBC is funded on a very different basis. The case for that needs to argued through. Funding one particular media organisation out of general taxation is a singularity. The case needs to be made.”
He also said a lot of time was being taken up with prosecutions for non-payment of the licence fee, which can be “heavy-handed”, saying: “We are looking at the possibility of decriminalising.”
A Tory source said the government had been looking at two options: scrapping the licence fee and decriminalising its non-payment.
Brekkie post_id=63549 time= user_id=976 Wrote:There is so much talk about the need to replace the licence fee, both by those who'd defund the BBC and those who want to protect it, but very little is put forward about viable alternative methods.
I guess the options basically are:
[list=]Licence Fee
General Taxation
Broadband (or other media) levy
Subscription
Advertising[/list]
Or a combination of two or more of the above.
All the alternatives have their own issues which is ultimately why we keep coming back to the licence fee. General taxation still raises questions of independence and means funding is subject to the whims of the government of the day. A broadband levy is surely the same thing under a different name.
Subscription means the BBC is no longer a PSB and in the same arena as Netflix, Sky etc. whilst advertising would not only destroy the BBC but risk seriously weakening ITV, C4, C5 and Sky too as advertising budgets aren't going to suddenly double to plug the gap.
I think a combination of a free and subscription service is what many of those who want to "defund the BBC" expect to be the long term solution - after all that is the case in most areas of public services too. How that would work in practice is questionable - would viewers expect shows like Strictly to be on the free service or for premium viewers only. And as you'd expect any subscription service now to be streaming based rather than channel based would shows like that even work in this environment?
I think combination between four methods (bar advertisement) are the most fairest methods among all, giving the history of the BBC as role for world's licence fee model since 1946. Other countries also using this formula and some others including advertising as well, which not necessary for reputable public broadcasters like the BBC and NHK.
RR post_id=63621 time= user_id=827 Wrote:To my mind, these days, eleven national radio channels (as per their DAB Multiplex) is not necessarily what is needed.
Thing is though that the digital stations are 'quick wins' for the BBC. 6 Music and 4Xtra are cheap to run, are good quality and popular, and provide something that no-one else does. Unlike most digital stations they're not just unmanned jukeboxes. That ticks all the boxes for public service and the BBC can up their service count for little money.
Now they've gone one step further and have started launching online jukebox stations like Radio 1 Dance and Chill. These give them the chance to say they're offering more services and more variety.... but on an absolute shoestring
Whether that's the right way to go I don't know, but these days those 10/11 stations are just a small fraction of the choice out there. In a world when there were only 3 national commercial stations, 11 might seem a lot, now there's loads of them, those 11 are a drop in the ocean, why shouldn't they compete?
Steve in Pudsey post_id=63630 time= user_id=942 Wrote:Other countries' national broadcasters have advertising without it affecting editorial control, and given the junctions full of trailers we currently get I'm not sure it's objectively a worse position than the status quo
No and there are of course 2 public service broadcasters in the UK that are funded by advertising. Although of course the same politicians are weighing up the future of one of those too. Could it be that we'll end up with the BBC with the Channel 4 model and Channel 4 in the private sector
CCFG post_id=63597 time= user_id=1195 Wrote:I personally think that the BBC will end up having it's channels and iPlayer locked behind a premium subscription model. Having adverts could completely mess up timeslots for some programmes.
No it won't, they'll just make new episodes shorter, and use the same edits as UKTV (i.e. trimmed to fit in commercials) for older shows.