Never ending harassment from TV Licensing

[GatwickDepress]

Apparently my residential address has been getting sporadic letters from TV Licensing ever since I was put on the electoral roll this year...

 

[87 027]

S4C are also funded from the Licence Fee and DCMS

 

[jon0844]

The technology already exists, it's called a subscription. Seems to work for Rupert.

I pay £70 a MONTH to Sky. No thank you. If people only paid for what they wanted to watch, imagine how much stuff wouldn't get made?

I'm sorry, but I think we need to keep the fee. I've said many times, as a journalist, that our TV, news and web media is falling in quality every year because it's reliant on advertisers that want to influence and control what is shown as best as possible (and the regulators are always far behind in controlling it).

And if the BBC ever took advertising, then ITV and the others would really suffer. There's only so much advertising money to go around.

 

[DownSouth]

They could also look at selling subscriptions to overseas markets as well. I imagine an IPlayer subscription would be quite popular in a number of foreign media markets...

The BBC already does get a substantial amount of revenue from selling to overseas markets in five ways.

1. numerous cable/satellite providers have a BBC content channel in their subscription packages.
2. re-broadcast rights to programs are sold to overseas networks, e.g. Doctor Who premieres on the ABC at the same time it does for the BBC despite that time usually being around 5am here.
3. sharing of resources for live events - at current (some of the less popular events at the Olympics, some World Cup matches) and previous (F1, cricket, Eurovision Song Contest) times every FTA network in Australia has subsidised the BBC by paying a fee to take their commentary audio instead of signing up their own commentators and flying them over to the events.
4. brand licensing - allowing an overseas network to make a local version of a program, magazine or event is money for jam.
5. selling episodes/series on well established online platforms such as iTunes or PlayStore - they may lose a cut of the take to Apple and Google, but they also don't need to worry about paying for the content servers.

To directly sell iPlayer subscriptions could threaten these lucrative income streams, and running their own paid online distribution scheme would surely be far more expensive to administer than simple license agreements where the majority would just need the same form contracts with a few details changed.

 

[Flamingo]

I pay £70 a MONTH to Sky. No thank you. If people only paid for what they wanted to watch, imagine how much stuff wouldn't get made?

I'm sorry, but I think we need to keep the fee. I've said many times, as a journalist, that our TV, news and web media is falling in quality every year because it's reliant on advertisers that want to influence and control what is shown as best as possible (and the regulators are always far behind in controlling it).

And if the BBC ever took advertising, then ITV and the others would really suffer. There's only so much advertising money to go around.

Well said.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sorry, but I think we need to keep the fee. I've said many times, as a journalist, that our TV, news and web media is falling in quality every year because it's reliant on advertisers that want to influence and control what is shown as best as possible (and the regulators are always far behind in controlling it).

The BBC are reliant on the goodwill of their funders too, though. That's why they've not bothered to report on the destruction of the NHS, or on the 50,000 people who marched at the weekend against austerity. Look at the way they take delight in reporting on Panorama that the NHS is "failing", not to mention the many programmes all essentially saying that anyone on benefits is a scrounger.

The BBC are reliant on the Government for their funding, the Government could take it away anytime they wanted, and so the BBC simply do not stand up to the Government. What's worse, they actively go out of their way to do the Government's dirty work for them. Anywhere else in the world "state broadcaster" is a synonym for "dictator's propaganda machine", yet we're supposed to believe our state broadcaster is impartial? Yeah right.

Look at the craven way in which they grovelled to the Sainted Tony even though, as it turns out, Andrew Gilligan was right.

If people only paid for what they wanted to watch, imagine how much stuff wouldn't get made?

Stuff doesn't get made now, because the BBC chuck all their money up the wall on crap that should be left to commercial operators, as happens in Australia. Not to mention the IT equipment failures that would make the Civil Service blush.

EastEnders, for instance, costs £30m a year to make. That's 208,334 TV tax payments, in old money.

 

[gordonthemoron]

lots of viewers for 'stenders though but

 

[bb21]

Anywhere else in the world "state broadcaster" is a synonym for "dictator's propaganda machine", yet we're supposed to believe our state broadcaster is impartial? Yeah right.

The thing is that no broadcaster is completely impartial. The stakeholders will all have vested interests in one way or another.

On that basis, the BBC does a relatively good job, compared to some others.

 

[ac6000cw]

The thing is that no broadcaster is completely impartial. The stakeholders will all have vested interests in one way or another.

On that basis, the BBC does a relatively good job, compared to some others.

I agree.

Nick Robinson's book 'Live from Downing Street' has quite a good history/opinions of the relationship between the BBC and the politicians since it was founded (and it's a good read anyway).

I'm just glad we don't have US-style endless inane or hard-sell adverts on every channel, topped off with the likes of Fox News....

 

[Greenback]

The BBC are reliant on the goodwill of their funders too, though. That's why they've not bothered to report on the destruction of the NHS, or on the 50,000 people who marched at the weekend against austerity. Look at the way they take delight in reporting on Panorama that the NHS is "failing", not to mention the many programmes all essentially saying that anyone on benefits is a scrounger.

That can't be right, otherwise we wouldn't have so many complaints about the BBC being leftist!

The BBC are reliant on the Government for their funding, the Government could take it away anytime they wanted, and so the BBC simply do not stand up to the Government. What's worse, they actively go out of their way to do the Government's dirty work for them. Anywhere else in the world "state broadcaster" is a synonym for "dictator's propaganda machine", yet we're supposed to believe our state broadcaster is impartial? Yeah right.

Seriously, with the decision on whether to withdraw the BBC's funding in government hands, the organisation is bound to be wary of upsetting them. It would be unrealistic to expect anything else. After watching the BBC over forty years, they always seem to be slightly more inclined to support whatever government is in power. I always put this down more to traditional British deference, but these days, with more pressure on the Beeb than ever before, I believe it is certainly because they need the support of the decision makers at Westminster, which in reality is probably more likely to be the senior civil servants.

The thing is that no broadcaster is completely impartial. The stakeholders will all have vested interests in one way or another.

On that basis, the BBC does a relatively good job, compared to some others.

Absolutely right. In fact, I think that, all things considered, they do a bloody good job. As I said, there are just as many complaints about bias against the government as there about bias in favour of it, so they must be getting the balance about as right as they possibly could!

 

[jon0844]

The BBC seem to have no problem talking about 'the cuts', including a new series that implies that South Yorkshire is suffering purely because of them - despite the fact that the problem areas have been problem areas even when there weren't any cuts. I'm sure there will always be problem areas.

But I'd still suggest that there's no specific bias left or right, as I don't see any evidence (and I know people working at the BBC in London and Salford) of any official policy (even if well hidden) to lean in any particular direction.

But is there possibly bias in some programmes, perhaps based on the views of those involved with the production of that individual programme? For sure. But that's just as much the case as when watching something on ITV or Channel 4 etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Seriously, with the decision on whether to withdraw the BBC's funding in government hands, the organisation is bound to be wary of upsetting them. It would be unrealistic to expect anything else.

I don't blame the BBC for this, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

When the Tories are in, the BBC line up to take pot shots at things the Tories don't like. When Labour are in, the BBC line up to take pot shots at things Labour don't like.

My point is that the BBC are no different to commercial channels who also don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. But I don't agree that "commercial news" means you have to have the swivel-eyed lunatics on Fox News, IMO the best news service in Britain right now is ITN's Channel Four News coverage.

Encouraging the BBC to move towards a subscription model may well help them in the longterm, as they'll control their own income stream.

Nick Robinson's book 'Live from Downing Street' has quite a good history/opinions of the relationship between the BBC and the politicians since it was founded (and it's a good read anyway).

Nick Robinson is a fantastic example of what I'm on about. Nick Robinson was the president of the Oxford University Conservative Association, and every time he opens his mouth it shows.