The Future of the BBC

[french frank]

Well, it is widely reported that the Chancellor intends to make the BBC bear the cost of the free TV licences for the over 75s. This amount (£650M) is equivalent to the total cost of all BBC Radio for the financial year 2013/14 (or a shade more than the total cost of BBC TWO and BBC THREE combined for the same period).

And now confirmed. How is that going to affect minority interest services/

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think we all know why the government is doing this.

However, on the other side of the coin - for many years, the BBC was seeking constant expansion. The Home Service - one television channel - the Light Programme - the Third Programme (and later expansion - the World Service - Radio 1 - BBC2 - colour TV - BBC Local Radio stations appearing all over the place - all day TV - digital radio & TV channels.

Bubbles have the habit of bursting.

[VodkaDilc]

I think we all know why the government is doing this.

However, on the other side of the coin - for many years, the BBC was seeking constant expansion. The Home Service - one television channel - the Light Programme - the Third Programme (and later expansion - the World Service - Radio 1 - BBC2 - colour TV - BBC Local Radio stations appearing all over the place - all day TV - digital radio & TV channels.

Bubbles have the habit of bursting.

I have always been a bit concerned about the BBC muscling in on everything, but I think the news website issue is becoming urgent. No-one who's read my posts would be surprised to hear that I read a (delivered) newspaper every day, but newspaper websites must be suffering from the BBC competition. Something they should keep out of, in my opinion. (I have no axe to grind; I don't read any of them.)

[french frank]

I think we all know why the government is doing this.

It is, in fact, another reason for abolishing the licence fee, isn't it? The fee doesn't - and hasn't - guaranteed freedom from government interference. I still think that a body with the power of IPSA is better (IPSA sets the level of MPs' salaries and the government can't dispute it). The BBC would be making its pitch for the amount of money it needed and why, OFCOM would still regulate what the BBC could and couldn't do. The government would make the payment out of general taxation (why not some form of hypothecated tax which would be unlikely to hit those on low incomes?)

As it is, the government is still thinking of decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee which will probably mean more licence evasion, lower revenue for the BBC and higher costs for pursuing those who don't pay. Lose-lose for the BBC.

[Anastasius]

I have always been a bit concerned about the BBC muscling in on everything, but I think the news website issue is becoming urgent. No-one who's read my posts would be surprised to hear that I read a (delivered) newspaper every day, but newspaper websites must be suffering from the BBC competition. Something they should keep out of, in my opinion. (I have no axe to grind; I don't read any of them.)

They did suffer until the BBC scored an own goal, redesigned the News website and decimated its audience at a stroke.

[Anastasius]

It is, in fact, another reason for abolishing the licence fee, isn't it? The fee doesn't - and hasn't - guaranteed freedom from government interference. I still think that a body with the power of IPSA is better (IPSA sets the level of MPs' salaries and the government can't dispute it). The BBC would be making its pitch for the amount of money it needed and why, OFCOM would still regulate what the BBC could and couldn't do. The government would make the payment out of general taxation (why not some form of hypothecated tax which would be unlikely to hit those on low incomes?)

As it is, the government is still thinking of decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee which will probably mean more licence evasion, lower revenue for the BBC and higher costs for pursuing those who don't pay. Lose-lose for the BBC.

Well, wonder how much they spend on all their websites? And useless things like Playlister? And let's not forget the £100 Million (or was it £150 million that they threw away on that ill-conceived digital platform). I see in todays paper that there are noises being raised about how the website is over-reaching itself in terms of scope and range.

[johnb]

Well, wonder how much they spend on all their websites? And useless things like Playlister?

The total cost allocated to BBC Online in the financial year 2013/14 was £174.4M. This includes "News, Sport & Weather": £47.8M, "TV & iPlayer": £11.1M and "Audio & Music": £11.7million.

The Financial Statement for 2013/14 is available here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualrep...nts_201314.pdf

[aeolium]

It is, in fact, another reason for abolishing the licence fee, isn't it? The fee doesn't - and hasn't - guaranteed freedom from government interference. I still think that a body with the power of IPSA is better (IPSA sets the level of MPs' salaries and the government can't dispute it). The BBC would be making its pitch for the amount of money it needed and why, OFCOM would still regulate what the BBC could and couldn't do. The government would make the payment out of general taxation (why not some form of hypothecated tax which would be unlikely to hit those on low incomes?)

As it is, the government is still thinking of decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee which will probably mean more licence evasion, lower revenue for the BBC and higher costs for pursuing those who don't pay. Lose-lose for the BBC.

It is a disgraceful and purely political decision by the government to force the BBC to take on the cost of subsidising free licences for the over-75s. After all, it was a political decision by a previous government to introduce the subsidy - nothing to do with the BBC. Not only does it provide additional evidence that the licence fee offers no sort of protection or independence for the BBC from government interference (which was always a fiction in my view) but it means that the BBC will suffer a further 20% cut in income to add to the 20% cut in real terms it suffered in the last "settlement" - in reality a government ultimatum. It really does seem as though this regime has it in for public service broadcasting.

I agree with ff that it is time to ditch the licence fee system and move to a form of hypothecated tax (the Finnish system?) overseen by an independent body so as to provide real protection against government interference. If the income provided for PSB were a percentage of the overall public spend - as currently obtains, for instance, in the Development Aid budget - and so would fall as overall spending fell or rose if spending increased then PSB would not be unduly favoured compared with other public services. How on earth any government would be persuaded to relinquish control over the purse strings is another matter. Does anyone in Parliament believe in public service broadcasting any longer?

[VodkaDilc]

I understand the logic of buses passes, free eye tests and prescriptions and so on at around retirement age. (And I have benefitted from them all.) But why does the BBC licence need to be free from 75? That is no longer the age at which people become housebound; at least, we hope not. Could it be reserved for the "extreme elderly"? (sorry if i cannot find a better term) - perhaps 80 or 85. There will, of couse, be many people of that age who could easily afford the fee and would be happy to pay (as with the Fuel Allowance).

At present the free licence perk seems as if it costs an enormous amount of money; is it necessary?

[Wallace]

I have never understood why we still have the BBC funded by the TV Licence fee rather than by an annual block grant (or equivalent) from government. The grant could be protected by legislation for periods of 5 or 10 years and then renegotiated. I have heard an argument that we keep the TV Licence to prevent governments interfering with the running of the BBC but government already does interfere and does so to significant effect. Direct funding seems such an obvious and simple solution, what is preventing it happening?

[aeolium]

I have never understood why we still have the BBC funded by the TV Licence fee rather than by an annual block grant (or equivalent) from government. The grant could be protected by legislation for periods of 5 or 10 years and then renegotiated. I have heard an argument that we keep the TV Licence to prevent governments interfering with the running of the BBC but government already does interfere and does so to significant effect. Direct funding seems such an obvious and simple solution, what is preventing it happening?

The fact that it is progressive (income tax) and not regressive like the licence fee and so would hit wealthier people harder, the basic tax rate having to be increased to provide the funding; and most governments these days seem to be about protecting the better off. The fact that it would remove the cost of licence fee collecting (£100m a year) as well as all the costly court cases associated with nonpayers is not considered. Even if a government ever agreed to making PSB part of general taxation, which I highly doubt, it would still want control of the purse-strings (the BBC being an easy target for cuts, as we have seen).

[Cockney Sparrow]

As Sir Christopher Bland said yesterday on Radio 4 - its a shoddy manoeuvre.

Useful analysis in the World Tonight on Radio 4 tonight. The BBC, with a gun to its head, has agreed to "The Deal". The BBC Trust, Parliament and the public have all had no part to play in this.

Sorry, IMO if a 75 year old is in need of means tested benefits, give them a licence paid for from the benefits budget. Otherwise, they can pay for it themselves. Except that "Call me Dave" has exempted this age group from any participation in the austerity about to impact even more heavily on all those "hard working families".

[Frances_iom]

As Sir Christopher Bland said yesterday on Radio 4 - its a shoddy manoeuvre.

it had two main functions the most relevant being to put down the BBC - sorry if this sounds too political but all governments (recall Tony Blair) intensely dislike an independent news channel that provides well researched criticism rather than unthinking support for their particular ideology - personally I can't see why all over 75s need free gogglebox but then not having owned a TV in my life. Removing the iPlayer blackhole will be very difficult other than by general taxation - the most fair system need the development of a micropayment internet scheme to allow payment for individual programs.

[teamsaint]

but there isn't much likelihood that the news output will be massively reduced, is there?

the BBC and all the other big media outlets seem to love all the material that governments throw at them. Cost cutting means that over busy journalists are happy enough to regurgitate whatever the Whitehall press officers throw at them.

As for payment for over 75's, why not have a half price licence?

iplayer could carry advertising maybe?

[Frances_iom]

but there isn't much likelihood that the news output will be massively reduced, is there?

the time devoted - probably no

however the loss will be in the research needed to discuss + criticise based on evidence rather than ideology - look at local newspapers and see how little in depth coverage they contain - once funding comes from one or two main sources (eg advertising + public announcements) then they are not going to criticise their paymasters and they become the modern equivalent of soviet era Pravda