BBC: TV licence fee decriminalisation consultation launches

[Outrider]

Simply because each year the chancellor could cut the budget if he felt they hadn't licked enough arse the year before?

It's not beyond them to do that at the moment - indeed, much of the current discussion is prompted by the current administrations threats to effectively do exactly that.
 

hmm ... so basically taxing the populace to provide documentaries and talking heads for the elites?

Why are they for the elites?  Why is the news not for everyone? Why is, say, Blue Planet II not for the nation as a whole?

Sounds like a recipe for ever decreasing audiences and funding along with it - why would you bother trying to keep it going?

Because an impartial news and factual programming provider is a social good.

O.

[Gordon]

Sorry, I can't see how anyone's personal viewing/listening preferences are of interest!
 

I suspect it would if the BBC were forced to accept advertising, as regards what content would (or wouldn't) attract advertising revenue.

[Udayana]

It's not beyond them to do that at the moment - indeed, much of the current discussion is prompted by the current administrations threats to effectively do exactly that.

They are trying - but the funding is more or less fixed (bar annual inflation) until 2022, and the charter is in place until 2027. I suppose if there were sufficient safeguards against government interference the money could be provided from general tax, but there would still be complaints that people who didn't watch/listen to the BBC were paying for it - let alone people that didn't watch any programmes on any device.
 

Why are they for the elites?  Why is the news not for everyone? Why is, say, Blue Planet II not for the nation as a whole?

Blue Planet, Blue Planet II were exceptions, getting high viewing figures. In general documentaries are beaten by entertainment or "reality" shows.

Because an impartial news and factual programming provider is a social good.

O.

I think so, which is why I'm in favor of the current system with a review to see if it can be brought up to date with consideration of the purpose of the BBC and newer technologies.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no such thing as an impartial news provider

[Outrider]

They are trying - but the funding is more or less fixed (bar annual inflation) until 2022, and the charter is in place until 2027. I suppose if there were sufficient safeguards against government interference the money could be provided from general tax, but there would still be complaints that people who didn't watch/listen to the BBC were paying for it - let alone people that didn't watch any programmes on any device.

And there are complaints from people who drive that their road fund license doesn't actually go to the roads, and complaints from people who home school or privately educate or don't have kids that they don't get a rebate for the education they aren't using - that's the nature of central taxation, and you vote for the candidates and parties that best reflect your preferred spending options.
 

Blue Planet, Blue Planet II were exceptions, getting high viewing figures. In general documentaries are beaten by entertainment or "reality" shows.

That they are popular doesn't make them any different in intent from the other documentaries, and the documentaries (and, more importantly, the news) aren't intended just for the elites.  It may be that people who don't think of themselves as 'elite' aren't inclined to watch them, but that's self-exclusion, not intent on the part of the BBC - maybe if more of them did watch we'd have a more enlightened society?

I think so, which is why I'm in favor of the current system with a review to see if it can be brought up to date with consideration of the purpose of the BBC and newer technologies.

My absolute preferred option is keep the BBC doing what it's doing, allow it the freedom to properly explore streaming (which it's tried to do, but been prevented from by the terms of its current charter, as I understand it), and just change the funding, but I'd be willing to accept it having the commercially viable portions of its programming stripped away to preserve and protect the factual programming element.

Having said that, I'm mindful that 'Top Gear' was (maybe still is?) somehow classified in 'factual programming' so the definitions might need tightening a little as well...

O.

[Outrider]

There is no such thing as an impartial news provider

There is such a thing as striving for impartiality, and there is definitely a scale of viability for that, though, is there not?  Should we give up on the prospect because we can't achieve perfection and continue to polarise into segregated opinion-bubbles?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

There is such a thing as striving for impartiality, and there is definitely a scale of viability for that, though, is there not?  Should we give up on the prospect because we can't achieve perfection and continue to polarise into segregated opinion-bubbles?

O.

Agree but not recognising that there are inherent biases would be a guarantee that trying for impartiality is not going to progress.

[Outrider]

Agree but not recognising that there are inherent biases would be a guarantee that trying for impartiality is not going to progress.

The BBC, I think, seems aware that individual editors and presenters have their own opinions - some strive to rein them in, some let them flow freely - and so implements different standards of behaviour in different areas and maintains a system of editorial oversight that makes it one of the most impartial broadcaster, not just in its news and factual output but across its entire output.  It's not perfect, but it's among the best.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The BBC, I think, seems aware that individual editors and presenters have their own opinions - some strive to rein them in, some let them flow freely - and so implements different standards of behaviour in different areas and maintains a system of editorial oversight that makes it one of the most impartial broadcaster, not just in its news and factual output but across its entire output.  It's not perfect, but it's among the best.

O.

It mimics very well a certain acceptable view. And that view is probably a zeitgeist view but that's it.

[jeremyp]

People are sent to prison for it

Read what the TV Licensing Authority has to say on the matter:

You could be prosecuted if we find that you have been watching, recording or downloading programmes illegally. The maximum penalty is a £1,000* fine plus any legal costs and/or compensation you may be ordered to pay.

*The maximum fine is £2,000 in Guernsey.

I suggest you do a little bit of research next time. Nobody is sent to prison for not paying for their TV licence.

And yes, the BBC does streaming - that doesn't mean that streaming has not fundamentally changed the market it competes in.

And the BBC is adapting to the market.

[jeremyp]

Media in the UK and much of the rest of the world would have been very different without the BBC - it is worth reading about how and why it was first setup.

Now, indeed, the mass media environment is very different and the purpose(s) of the BBC should be re-examined and maybe a better funding scheme put in place.  If everyone insists that they only want to pay for programmes that they watch, then go with that - just let the BBC compete on it's own terms, raise money from shareholders, subscriptions or advertising, or fold or whatever.   

But what if the BBC's unique qualities are a direct result of the way it is funded? Personally, I think they probably are and I do not want to take the risk of throwing them away just because some people think it's trendy.

[Harrowby Hall]

Nobody has mentioned BritBox yet.

BritBox is a joint project between the BBC and ITV and appears to be trying to enter the same marketplace as that occupied by Netflix and Amazon Prime. Its main selling point is the vast archive that ITV and the BBC can jointly make available.

[jeremyp]

Nobody has mentioned BritBox yet.

BritBox is a joint project between the BBC and ITV and appears to be trying to enter the same marketplace as that occupied by Netflix and Amazon Prime. Its main selling point is the vast archive that ITV and the BBC can jointly make available.

The main selling point to me is that it is the only streaming service that has Hustle. That's why it gets my subscription.

[Nearly Sane]

The main selling point to me is that it is the only streaming service that has Hustle. That's why it gets my subscription.

currently on iplayer. I would be attracted by Dr Who but it doesn't cover all platforms easily

[Outrider]

It mimics very well a certain acceptable view. And that view is probably a zeitgeist view but that's it.

In its editorialising it tends to vary from the centre-left to the centre-right, broadly covering the bulk of the populace, and in its news it tends to be more tightly focussed and (importantly compared to other 'news' outlets) less prone to editorialising at all.  It's not so much that it 'mimics an acceptable view' as it tries to represent the interests of the national mainstream views - that's its remit.

O.

[Outrider]

But what if the BBC's unique qualities are a direct result of the way it is funded? Personally, I think they probably are and I do not want to take the risk of throwing them away just because some people think it's trendy.

They largely are, inasmuch as their funding is independent of any commercial interest - my feeling is switching to funding from general taxation won't fundamentally change that, but it's difficult to be entirely certain.  If, for instance, the counterpoint to the change is increased government (or even civil service) involvement in the Trust or the editorial policies then it could represent a significant shift.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

One point that was made by someone on the radio that I'd not considered previously was about the the inability to cut off someone from the BBC service in the manner that can be done for other services if someone fails to pay their bills.

So (at least in theory) if I fail to pay my gas bill, or internet bill or phone bill the service provider can remove that service from me. The BBC can't as the service (freeview via an arial etc) simply cannot be removed from an individual.

The point the person was making was that for default on other bills the service provider can limit the level of default by cutting off the service and hence there is less need to have criminal sanction as a last resort. For the BBC cutting off the service isn't an option.

[Udayana]

But what if the BBC's unique qualities are a direct result of the way it is funded? Personally, I think they probably are and I do not want to take the risk of throwing them away just because some people think it's trendy.

Yes. The charter/licence system was carefully designed and has stood the test of time. I think changing the funding does have a high risk of destroying the BBC.

In fact, the whole controversy has been worked up to attack the BBC , stop reporting on essential topics, and (much like brexit?) to distract from the absolute shambles the government is making of running the country.

[Aruntraveller]

In fact, the whole controversy has been worked up to attack the BBC , stop reporting on essential topics, and (much like brexit?) to distract from the absolute shambles the government is making of running the country.

Indeed. Quick. Look over there at the BBC giving all it's money to Gary Linekar. What's that you say? You didn't hear us lying about the end of austerity. That's your fault for looking over there.