will free to air BBC survive past the next election

[Frances_iom]

There would appear to be no real discussion about the destruct mechanism just about to be passed into law which can be triggered at the whim of the next politician who is criticial of BBC policy - removing the criminal nature of licence fee evasion would result in so many civil cases thus making licence collection extremely expensive - paying a licence fee becomes voluntary - either BBC removes its free to air nature (easily possible with iplayer and somewhat easy for cable subscribers and I note already being discussed in certain Tory rags) or becomes, as R3 already nearly has, indistinguishable from commercial stations with adverts - either way any cultural station pretensions will soon dissapear along with the audience.

[Barbirollians]

Rumours are though that they are working on something that would allow them turn off the signal to those who have not paid . Which apparently is feasible with digital although it was not with analogue .

[Frances_iom]

turning off reception requires (a) a choice of DRM mechanism (b) a hardware mechanism similar to the sky box which also requires access to a telephone + also an accessible (to provider) source of funds - since the pressure will soon be on (as in the USA) to avoid bundling (eg sports channels with otherwise unwanted channels) such that BBC revenue will fall considerably (tho of course it could expand beyond the British Isles but this would rapidly see total Americanisation ) - Radio esp R3 would be a major and almost immediate loser especially as income streams could not readily be forseen

[Dave2002]

- since the pressure will soon be on (as in the USA) to avoid bundling (eg sports channels with otherwise unwanted channels)

I didn't know about any moves in that direction in the USA. Do you have any details?

Are we now to discover that bundling might have been a good idea, after all? Every time I consider taking out a Sky subscription I look at all the "rubbish" stuff I'd have to subscribe to - sport, pop, musicals etc. just in order to get one or two decent arts channels. Then of course these wily commercial operators make sure that if there are three (say) channels I'd want to watch they get put into different bundles.

I have not subscribed to Sky yet, and am still holding out.

[Honoured Guest]

Such a prospect - Ena eating her muesli in silence for eternity ....

[teamsaint]

" Free to air" is SO C20.

They aren't spending all that time on DRM and making all platforms digital for their health.

[MrBear]

Paying the licence fee is voluntary
I have been thinking I am never going to pay it again due to harassment and problems including lies when I moved a year ago
The system has got to change

I do feel I could happily live without any of the BBCs services especially as I am not a fan of the far right


How is Radio3 funded is it only from the license fee ?

[french frank]

How is Radio3 funded is it only from the license fee ?

Yes, essentially. [Other than possibly secret bribes about which nothing is known!]

[Dave2002]

Paying the licence fee is voluntary
I have been thinking I am never going to pay it again due to harassment and problems including lies when I moved a year ago
The system has got to change

No, it's not voluntary - if you watch TV. You are exempt if you only listen to radio, and never (at present) watch "live TV." This seems likely to change, as the let out for watching via Internet or data comms channels with time shifted recordings/streaming will probably be brought in to the conditions for having a licence.

Whether you think that's fair, or should be different, doesn't alter the status quo.

The BBC started life as a commercial organisation. Then others seemed to gain control who thought it should serve educational and other worthy purposes, and it became perceived as a public service. Now it seems to be going downhill - I wish someone would put the brakes on.

If you want the BBC to become like most of the services in other countries (adverts, poor news coverage, etc., etc.) - such as the USA, then just don't bother to pay the fee. Public TV does exist in the US, but the annual pledge drives are a bit of a bore, and many of the good programmes there do come from the BBC. The media people are right - the "landscape" is changing, but it doesn't have to go completely down the tubes as it may do if some have their way.

[french frank]

No, it's not voluntary - if you watch TV.

But watching TV is voluntary.

I'm not sure that I take the same view on the decriminalisation of licence fee evasion. I don't imagine the comfortably off are even tempted to do so. It's a regressive tax. I might even float the thought that watching TV is an addiction - like constantly checking one's mobile ...

[Dave2002]

But watching TV is voluntary.

I'm not sure that I take the same view on the decriminalisation of licence fee evasion.

I"m not quite sure what the difference is between a criminal offence and a civil one! Practically, for "crimes" such as not paying the licence fee I suspect that there's really not a lot - maybe they can clap you in jug for non-payment/refusal to pay. I've got a pretty low opinion of much of the law in the UK, apart from laws which are clearly designed and are effective enough - up to a point - to protect most of us from violent people, and obvious fraudsters. Mostly the "law" just does not seem to work effectively. What would happen if one refused to pay anyway? Eventually one would get taken to court, and probably asked to pay a fine, but many seem to ignore the instructions from civil courts more or less with impunity, though they may have to attend from time to time to explain their non-compliance - if they can be found, that is.

[Serial_Apologist]

I"m not quite sure what the difference is between a criminal offence and a civil one!

I am often confused about this too, Dave2002. If running out of a shop with merchandise one has not paid for is the criminal offense of theft, I'm not sure what difference this is from receiving broadcasts without paying for them one one is supposed to being also theft, surely?

[french frank]

I am often confused about this too, Dave2002. If running out of a shop with merchandise one has not paid for is the criminal offense of theft, I'm not sure what difference this is from receiving broadcasts without paying for them one one is supposed to being also theft, surely?

Pabmusic's area here - or Mr Rumpole's. But a criminal offence will involve the police, I suppose, whereas a civil offence is between two parties, the 'wronged' party having the responsibility to gain redress.

This becomes so complicated, is costly &c I'm not sure why there is so little support for funding public service broadcasting from taxation.

[MrBear]

I use to be happy to pay license fee as I thought the BBC was wortwhile Now I don't
I didn't have a television for about six years and didn't miss it
Is it not unfair to make anybody who watches television pay to the BBC wether or not they watch any BBC is that not some kind of legalised theft

[french frank]

Is it not unfair to make anybody who watches television pay to the BBC wether or not they watch any BBC is that not some kind of legalised theft

Technically, they are not 'paying for the programming': they are a paying for a licence to operate their receiving equipment. The revenue is used to support what is deemed to be 'public service broadcasting' and that's the point at which questions might be asked of the BBC.