The Future of the BBC

[aeolium]

The real explosive issue for me is the idea that the Government can appoint people directly to be a part of running the BBC rather than simply as its oversight body . The BBC has IMO been acting as a government mouthpiece especially on economic policy for the past 5 years and frequently ignores embarrassing stories for the Government . It caved cravenly in to demands it funded the World Service and pensioners free licences .

have no doubt this has been in part due to their fears on charter renewal . They have been rewarded today by a less aggressive regime of interference from Whittingdale than expected but the idea of direct government appointees on their board sends shivers down the spine . Any non -employee members of this new Board should be appointed by an independent commission .

I agree that any kind of government appointment for membership of the new regulatory board is pernicious, and I wouldn't be surprised if that proposal failed to get through Parliament. On the other hand I agree with the replacement of the BBC Trust which was clearly not fit for purpose.

I'm opposed to the licence fee not just because of its intrinsic unfairness as a flat-rate charge irrespective of income but also because its level is entirely under government control, as we saw in the last two cloak-and-dagger settlements which greatly reduced the BBC's real-terms income. Nothing in the White Paper changes that, which is a far greater restraint on the BBC's independence than any minority government appointees on the regulatory board. The government will also set the terms of the next Charter renewal, as it has done this, as well as the mid-term review.

Interestingly, there was far greater support for the status quo in the responses to the consultation - presumably from interested parties, professionals, articulate viewers/listeners - than in the responses to public polling, though arguably the latter should have been conducted on a much greater sample.

[french frank]

Interestingly, there was far greater support for the status quo in the responses to the consultation - presumably from interested parties, professionals, articulate viewers/listeners - than in the responses to public polling, though arguably the latter should have been conducted on a much greater sample.

I remember Whittingdale (some years before becoming Culture Secretary), I suppose when he was chair of the Select Committee, saying the BBC had a knack of carrying out research which showed the public thought the licence fee was 'good value for money', a 'good way of funding the BBC', that 'the public loved and trusted the BBC' &c &c. It seems as if Mr W has acquired the same knack

There clearly is going to be a fight over government appointees to the editorial board, whatever it turns out to be.

I'm more nostalgic about the Trust: the previous government invented the entire new framework of governance when it abolished the Board of Governors. It was at that point that the Trust was given an impossible job. In other words, my view would be that it was the framework (now being dismantled again) that was flawed, rather than the Trust on its own; it was not unlike the Board of Governors, but with a more onerous job to fulfil.

[Cockney Sparrow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079m0ps

A must-listen.

The Media Show at 4.15 yesterday. I must listen again (divided attention) - one point I picked up was that (hackneyed phrase) the devil might be in the detail. Apart from the replacement for the Trust, the charter may contain some trojan horses.

One, for example and hoping I recall this correctly, funding (small amount at present) a "challenge fund" budget for other broadcasters to serve a particular programme need - another raid on the licence fee payers funds. So - establish the principle, with a small amount now. Then come back later, and say the principle has been accepted, its been a great success, so we'll do it on a much larger scale. Hopefully there is enough scepticism in Parliament to oppose these aspects as well. I'm afraid I just don't trust this government, with their need to serve the interests of media moguls (you know - the owners who aren't resident for tax purposes in this country but nonetheless want to mould the views of the public in their interests).

[Sir Velo]

I agree that any kind of government appointment for membership of the new regulatory board is pernicious, and I wouldn't be surprised if that proposal failed to get through Parliament. On the other hand I agree with the replacement of the BBC Trust which was clearly not fit for purpose.

I'm opposed to the licence fee not just because of its intrinsic unfairness as a flat-rate charge irrespective of income but also because its level is entirely under government control, as we saw in the last two cloak-and-dagger settlements which greatly reduced the BBC's real-terms income.

You seem to be viewing the licence fee as a crypto tax! As far as I know, none of the broadband providers - SKy, Virgin, BT scale their subscriptions according to income. Would you expect to pay less for other consumables eg food, CDs, clothes, electricity etc based on ability to pay?

My objection to the licence fee is more that it does not reflect usage. One is obliged to pay for it even if one only ever watches the occasional broadcast. Personally, I would propose a system of charging based on actually viewing time. It should be possible with today's digital set top boxes to monitor viewing and bill accordingly. That would seem to me a much more equitable system.

If that fails to meet favour, then at least a subscription split between the various channels, much in the way that Sky or Virgin do, with various packages, reflecting one's own interests. So, I would maybe purchase a subscription for BBC4 (and maybe BBC 2) at say £75 per annum, but would have no interest in paying for any of the other channels, which frankly contain absolute drivel 99% of the time.

[french frank]

One, for example and hoping I recall this correctly, funding (small amount at present) a "challenge fund" budget for other broadcasters to serve a particular programme need - another raid on the licence fee payers funds.

On pp 71-72. Yes, it seems to be for public service content, such as OfCom has identified as being underserved (that might include the arts!!!):

"The contestable public service content fund will receive up to £60 million of funding for two-three years (planned £20 million per annum) after which the impact of the scheme will be assessed and a decision taken about whether to close, maintain or grow the scheme. Funding will be directed from unallocated funding from the 2010 licence fee settlement, to help support a series of priority areas in public service broadcasting provision. This money is additional and separate from the funding agreement that the government and the BBC reached in July 2015."


Not quite sure what that last sentence means: it seems to be perfectly clear but I don't understand it.

[aeolium]

I'm afraid I don't see why a flat rate charge is intrinsically unfair! As far as I know, none of the broadband providers - SKy, Virgin, BT scale their subscriptions according to income. Would you expect to pay less for other consumables eg food, CDs, clothes, electricity etc based on ability to pay?

Actually the broadband providers do scale their subscriptions, not according to income, but according to speed, bandwidth, data usage etc which means there is a significant gap between the cheapest package and the most expensive. And are you saying all food and clothes cost the same? Electricity like other fuel does I think have special tariffs for those on low incomes.

My objection to the licence fee is more that it does not reflect usage. One is obliged to pay for it even if one only ever watches the occasional broadcast. I favour a subscription split between the various channels, much in the way that Sky or Virgin do, with various packages, reflecting one's own interests. So, I would maybe purchase a subscription for BBC4 (and maybe BBC 2) at say £75 per annum, but would have no interest in paying for any of the other channels, which frankly contain absolute drivel 99% of the time.

The problem with subscription funding is that it isn't a guaranteed income stream and may not cover the cost of the particular channels - BBC4 and R3 may go to the wall, e.g. even though those may be the ones you want.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Actually the broadband providers do scale their subscriptions, not according to income, but according to speed, bandwidth, data usage etc which means there is a significant gap between the cheapest package and the most expensive.

How do the prices for the cheapest packages compare with the £145.50 per annum of the TV Licence Fee? (And do elderly subscribers get their packages free?)

The problem with subscription funding is that it isn't a guaranteed income stream and may not cover the cost of the particular channels - BBC4 and R3 may go to the wall, e.g. even though those may be the ones you want.

[french frank]

So, I would maybe purchase a subscription for BBC4 (and maybe BBC 2) at say £75 per annum, but would have no interest in paying for any of the other channels, which frankly contain absolute drivel 99% of the time.

As I think aeolium was suggesting, the massive subscription funding would go to the services that were most popular, probably those 'which frankly contain absolute drivel 99% of the time'. It would be entirely market-driven, not content-driven.

[Sir Velo]

As I think aeolium was suggesting, the massive subscription funding would go to the services that were most popular, probably those 'which frankly contain absolute drivel 99% of the time'. It would be entirely market-driven, not content-driven.

Not necessarily. If you made BBC subscription channel based, I think you would still get between 5 and 10 million subscribers to BBC 4. If you average it at say 10 million subscribers at £75 per head = £750m revenue from subscription alone. Don't forget the BBC sells a great many of its programmes overseas or on DVD etc. Many programmes are also collaborative ventures, so that the BBC does not bear the total cost of production.

I should also add that coming up with a totally arbitrary figure of £75 is proportionately way in excess of the channel's current share of the licence fee.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think you would still get between 5 and 10 million subscribers to BBC 4. If you average it at say 10 million subscribers

[aeolium]

How do the prices for the cheapest packages compare with the £145.50 per annum of the TV Licence Fee? (And do elderly subscribers get their packages free?)

I suppose the cheapest would be PAYG mobile. There are providers who offer free broadband with the monthly phone line rental. But I suppose the point is that these are not virtually compulsory in the way the TV licence is, with its rather heavy-handed (and costly) enforcement process. There are ways in which it could be made fairer while preserving the very good value it provides. Finland has recently replaced its licence fee with a hypothecated income tax charge. Australia has its public broadcaster funded from income tax. Germany's universal household levy has exemptions for the poor. Even Tony Hall thought that the BBC should be moving towards the household levy system.

[Sir Velo]

Actually the broadband providers do scale their subscriptions

As far as I'm aware they don't scale their subscriptions according to income!

Likewise, your point on clothing: I'll doubt you find a retailer in the land that will sell you an article of clothing cheaper because you're poor. Let me know if you do, though, I can always do in saving a few quid!

[aeolium]

They don't for TV!

Is that a reason for a public service broadcaster to ape them? Why is every other public service paid for by progressive taxation and not the BBC?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Why is every other public service paid for by progressive taxation and not the BBC?

Whilst I can see that that might resolve the problems you perceive in the Licence Fee, I'm not sure how it would deal with the issue of the money paid to the BBC being decided by the Government:

I'm opposed to the licence fee not just because of its intrinsic unfairness as a flat-rate charge irrespective of income but also because its level is entirely under government control

[Sir Velo]

Is that a reason for a public service broadcaster to ape them? Why is every other public service paid for by progressive taxation and not the BBC?

I was responding to your straw man point about the other broadcasters. If you want to claim that they scale their charges then I am pointing out to you that they don't when it comes to TV packages. What they do do, however, is that they allow the customer to pay more or less depending on how many channels they want to view, and whether or not they want the premium channels. All of which seems eminently fairer to me than your "progressive" charge.