The Future of the BBC

[Sir Velo]

The problem with subscription is that it doesn't require citizens to fund the BBC.

Have we had the debate as to whether citizens should be required to fund the BBC?

[Sir Velo]

I think you over-estimate by a considerable margin the numbers who would subscribe to BBC4.

I think I do too but maybe not as much as you think! BBC management are cleverly sticking a lot of populist stuff on BBC 4 - eg their rock albums series and sounds of the seventies. If the BBC follows Sky's trick of putting one or two very popular shows on BBC4 they could ensure they get a far wider subscriber base than they do now.

However, even if only a million subscribers could be found, there is still additional revenue from sales of DVDs, sales to overseas broadcasters, royalties, cross channel recharges (ie BBC4 programmes often get repeated on BBC 2) to add into the mix.

If

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... there is still additional revenue from sales of DVDs, sales to overseas broadcasters, royalties, cross channel recharges (ie BBC4 programmes often get repeated on BBC 2) to add into the mix.

But this "additional revenue" is already coming in - it wouldn't contribute to the funding needed from the loss of the Licence Fee. (And, err ... aren't "royalties" what the BBC would have to pay out - to the people who made the programmes - rather than income?)

[Gordon]

Have we had the debate as to whether citizens should be required to fund the BBC?

The White Paper contents report what citizens have been saying in more than one survey, one of them being a formal invitation from the SoS. Support is strong for the LF and other mechanisms were discussed at least an found wanting. In that sense we have had a debate of some sort. Government is there to make decisions of all sorts on our behalf without any debate in many cases.

[french frank]

there is still additional revenue from sales of DVDs, sales to overseas broadcasters, royalties, cross channel recharges (ie BBC4 programmes often get repeated on BBC 2) to add into the mix.

If

If … the revenue is channelled back into the service which originally broadcast them (which it isn't at present). You are still supposing that people will subscribe to several services, and that BBC Four will be one of them. Most of those who watch Four also watch BBC One and BBC Two, which they will also be subscribing to. On average, in the week ending 1 May, they watched BBC Four for 14 mins per week out of total average viewing of 24 hours 9 mins - how much will 14 mins be worth by way of subscription? And if the BBC is paid for by channel-based subscription, who will pay for the Proms? the Orchestras? And BBC online? And other central services like news gathering?

[Gordon]

If … the revenue is channelled back into the service which originally broadcast them (which it isn't at present). You are still supposing that people will subscribe to several services, and that BBC Four will be one of them. Most of those who watch Four also watch BBC One and BBC Two, which they will also be subscribing to. On average, in the week ending 1 May, they watched BBC Four for 14 mins per week out of total average viewing of 24 hours 9 mins - how much will 14 mins be worth by way of subscription? And if the BBC is paid for by channel-based subscription, who will pay for the Proms? the Orchestras? And BBC online? And other central services like news gathering?

The answer to these questions are probably obvious to SKy. They sell nothing by the yard everything is done in bundles like some local auction house lots. If it was more profitable to do otherwise they would. They also adjust bundling and tarriffs to track viewing habits and offers to attract new customers are, in the immortal phrase, for "new customers only". Demand under subscription is known to be dynamic.

[Sir Velo]

If … the revenue is channelled back into the service which originally broadcast them (which it isn't at present). You are still supposing that people will subscribe to several services, and that BBC Four will be one of them. Most of those who watch Four also watch BBC One and BBC Two, which they will also be subscribing to. On average, in the week ending 1 May, they watched BBC Four for 14 mins per week out of total average viewing of 24 hours 9 mins - how much will 14 mins be worth by way of subscription? And if the BBC is paid for by channel-based subscription, who will pay for the Proms? the Orchestras? And BBC online? And other central services like news gathering?

Well that's right and that's why BBC 4 should be proportionately more expensive per viewing minute than some of the other channels. But as I say, if there were to be a shortfall in income then the BBC would follow Sky's lead and do, as LHC indicated, and put one or two very popular shows on BBC 4 thereby compelling more people to subscribe to the channel.

The accountants would work out the nuts and bolts but you could have:

Full package (all channels) £200
BBC1, BBC2 (and one other channel) £150
Two channels BBC2/BBC4 £125
BBC 1 only £100
BBC4 £80

Or you could do it as follows:

Unlimited viewing £200
50-100 hrs per week £150
25-50 hrs £100
10-25 hrs £50
0-10 hrs £25

[french frank]

one or two very popular shows on BBC 4 thereby compelling more people to subscribe to the channel.

Really? The whole package more expensive than now, and … who is funding BBC radio?

[Sir Velo]

Really? The whole package more expensive than now, and … who is funding BBC radio?

Well clearly, if you allow people to pay less by subscribing to fewer channels then you have to compensate for it by raising prices somewhere! As I said the detail of the pricing structure would have to be worked out to ensure that total revenue remained roughly the same.

BBC radio will either be subsidised by making a deduction out of subscriptions or by having a separate licence fee.

[aeolium]

I think subscription would result in a whole mass of people dropping out of accessing BBC, and mainly from the less well-off, those who are already much less enamoured of the licence fee. You could argue that in some ways that would be fairer, the element of compulsion has gone, people have more choice but only if you take an essentially consumerist view of what the BBC provides and discount the public service characteristics altogether. I think the latter are on the contrary the real raison d'etre for the BBC and that there would be a general cultural impoverishment if it were weakened (as it would be, financially) and if access to it were restricted.

[french frank]

Well clearly, if you allow people to pay less by subscribing to fewer channels then you have to compensate for it by raising prices somewhere!

At which point one might pause to wonder whether this is a good system … Radio licences, like dog licences, were discontinued because of the difficulty/cost of policing licence possession.

Back of fag packet figures suggest that a licence fee to fund radio - 25m households paying out £650m - would cost £26 a throw, and if the operating costs of the World Service are thrown in (another £250m) that would be £36 pa. Plus an unquantifiable sum needed for policing and collection. It all mounts up, doesn't it?

[french frank]

Anyway, getting back to the actual White Paper, I'm interested in the focus on 'distinctiveness' - and more precisely a definition of 'distinctiveness'. It always struck me that this was dubious when comparing R3 and Classic FM since clearly it was possible to reel off any number of differences between the two stations, and yet … and yet …

The WP attempts a definition (p32), where it says (Box 12):

A description that captures the spirit of distinctiveness well comes from a former BBC Chairman [I guessed Patten, but actually it was Michael Grade] who, in setting out his vision for the BBC, said:

“It means to inform, educate and entertain – and do it in a way that’s original, distinctive, ambitious, ground-breaking, risk-taking, memorable, innovative, informative, stretching, inspirational. It means programmes that challenge, that open our eyes, and that bring delight. It means setting the gold standard for every genre of content from news and current affairs to drama, comedy and yes, quiz games and everything in between. And doing it across television, radio, and online.

What is does not mean is patronising, derivative, formulaic commodity programming that may deliver value to shareholders or advertisers but can leave audiences short-changed.”

The government's own definition, possibly interestingly, includes 'the range of audiences it serves'. For me what was wrong with Radio 3's distinctiveness was that it targeted a very similar audience to Classic FM - a 'broad audience' which wasn't after any in-depth comment about classical music. Useless if you were not in that audience 'range': you just had two 'classical music' radio stations that you didn't want to listen to, rather than one. No matter how 'distinctive' they were.

[greenilex]

Forgive me for being really ignorant in these matters, but I have always supposed that the license gave permission to use equipment, no matter what was received. Is there no way to ensure that all those using broadband have to pay it?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Forgive me for being really ignorant in these matters, but I have always supposed that the license gave permission to use equipment, no matter what was received. Is there no way to ensure that all those using broadband have to pay it?

What seemed to me to be an easy solution, suggested by Marcus Brigstocke, would be to have your TV Licence number as a PIN whenever you sign in to the i-Player.

[french frank]

What seemed to me to be an easy solution, suggested by Marcus Brigstocke, would be to have your TV Licence number as a PIN whenever you sign in to the i-Player.

What about radio? Nobody seems to mention that when they say 'iPlayer'.

I have always supposed that the license gave permission to use equipment, no matter what was received. Is there no way to ensure that all those using broadband have to pay it?

On the odd occasion that I've stumbled on the live TV stream looking for an On Demand programme there's a warning notice that I ought to have a TV licence. But owning the equipment to access live TV doesn't require a licence. It's using that equipment (eg a computer) to access the programmes that needs a licence. If they change that I may find myself in prison quite soon