BBC licence fees again ....

[Dave2002]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/20/bbc-says-channels-may-close-without-over-75s-licence-fee

Maybe time to go back to the For3 web site. Not visited there for months.

This seems unfortunate. I guess I'm opposed to taking away the over 75s licence fee benefit, but if so many people are using Sky and BT and other services, including many over 75s, then why can't the charges be levied against all those?

OK - my sentence is slightly ambiguous - but maybe when you apply for a licence you should be asked if you use online or satellite TV. Having said that, just about anything which comes from government now seems to turn to dross, so maybe that's not a good idea.

[french frank]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...5s-licence-fee

Maybe time to go back to the For3 web site. Not visited there for months.

This seems unfortunate. I guess I'm opposed to taking away the over 75s licence fee benefit, but if so many people are using Sky and BT and other services, including many over 75s, then why can't the charges be levied against all those?

OK - my sentence is slightly ambiguous - but maybe when you apply for a licence you should be asked if you use online or satellite TV. Having said that, just about anything which comes from government now seems to turn to dross, so maybe that's not a good idea.

I suppose I'd go with this proposal: 'applying a means test under which only people who receive pension credit will not have to pay the fee, although the BBC noted that not all of those eligible for the credit actually claim it'.

[Dave2002]

I don't think I would. I think HMG should get its act together and not try to push problems on to other organisations, or at least if it does so, not in an "unfair" way. Why shouldn't Sky and all the other content makers, providers etc. have to pay more? Everyone is trying to pass the buck, these days.

I have written before that I can't really see why there has to be a licence fee at all - just add it to general taxation, but that has been considered unfair, and just as with another ****** word one doubts that HMG is going to authorise any additional payment to support either communities, or industries which might need support, or maybe the NHS etc. if its own funding is reduced, and as we all "know" increasing taxes to cover costs is just dumb, and the electorate don't like it, and won't put up with that! <rant> <over>

However, as I've also written before, if having a licence fee means that there is some (ha) control over quality - not only of R3 - then I'm in favour of that - even though radio is now exempt.

[french frank]

I suppose I'd go with this proposal: 'applying a means test under which only people who receive pension credit will not have to pay the fee, although the BBC noted that not all of those eligible for the credit actually claim it'.

I don't think I would. I think HMG should get its act together and not try to push problems on to other organisation

My general viewpoint would be the same as yours: if the government thinks it's a good idea, then they (i.e. the taxpayer!) should cover the cost, considering it an 'age-related welfare benefit'. But the actual story you linked to was written from the BBC's point of view - a BBC lumbered with an enormous extra financial burden by the government. It would be pretty useless them saying, 'Well, we think you should pay for it, not us'. They have to come up with a mitigating compromise which they hope the government will accept, and which they could live with.

[DracoM]

Which surely leaves the BBC between a rock and a pretty hard place?

[Lat-Literal]

According to Ofcom, nine in ten people watched TV every week in 2017, for an average of 3 hours 23 minutes a day. Those aged 55+ accounted for more than half of viewing in the UK. Consequently to say that the average age of a BBC1 viewer is over 60 is misleading. In time terms, the average age of any sort of television viewer is unlikely to be very much different.

That is if you believe the figures at all.

Between September 2017 and August 2018, more than 26,000 people between the ages of 18 and 25 were caught - note that excludes the not caught - watching live TV or BBC iPlayer without a TV Licence, according to BBC TV Licensing. Research showed that "the number of students taking a TV to university had risen from 23% to 27% since the previous year", a trend that goes against the folk lore that television among the young is in stark decline. "Despite the explosion in popularity of smartphones and tablets, a television is still the most used device for students watching live or recorded TV". But, "for those watching BBC iPlayer, most are using a laptop, with 65% watching on their pc and 28% on their smartphone."

Internationally, figures presented for news purposes have been based on live viewing on a television set only. In the US, and this is according to Business Inside, this has distorted the picture - that's my own view - so that the average mean age of the NBC audience for The Voice is regarded as 57.3, and on CBC for Young Sheldon - a spin off of The Big Bang Theory - it is 57.4, for Will and Grace it is 52.2 and for The Big Bang Theory it is 56.2. These are typical, not peculiar to the US, and no indication of preference for non public broadcasting.

To believe that so few people are watching BBC1 as it is presented is to believe that the younger audience is small for, among other things, Dr Who, Match of the Day, Mrs Brown's Boys and Strictly Come Dancing which has peaked at 11m viewers representing over 43% of television share. And I don't believe it for one minute. Indeed, the BBC itself tends to justify the inclusion of programmes on BBC1 on the basis that the audience for them is broad and diverse. Otherwise, they say, those programmes would have to be broadcast elsewhere.

What of older age? According to the BBC's own TV Licencing website, and admittedly this was based on 2010, "People are filling their homes with more televisions than ever and on average are watching TV over an hour a day more than they think...….an ICM poll conducted for TV Licensing's TeleScope report reveals adults in Britain think they watch an average of less than 20 hours of TV a week, or around three hours a day, but official statistics collected by the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) showed that the true average in 2010 was more than 30 hours a week, or over four hours a day.The statistics show that the older we are, the more TV we tend to watch, and the amount we watch is increasing".

"Furthermore, the BARB average for all ages (including children) is 28 hours a week, which is three hours more than in 2001, not including the TV we now watch on equipment other than our TV sets. The report, which provides a focus on the nation’s viewing habits, also shows people now have an average of 2.4 rooms with TVs in them, and by 2020, expect that to rise to three. The findings are among many in the report which demonstrate the increasing importance of the nation's love affair with television". This did, of course, largely predate the huge rise in such phenomena as Netflix but it also came at a time when going out for the night was in sharp decline among all ages. Pubs, gig venues, bowling alleys - all down.

So what can one believe? As recently as Summer 2018, CNN Business in an article entitled "Brits can't get enough of Netflix and Amazon Prime" explained "Television and audio-visual viewing by Brits averaged just over five hours a day, with 71% of that consisting of traditional broadcast TV. But people aged 16 to 34 spend a majority of their time (over two and a half hours) watching streaming content on platforms such as Google's (GOOGL) YouTube and Netflix". Well, I'm sorry but when I watch music videos on You Tube that to me is not watching television, nor would I be watching television at those times in the main if that were not available. It has never been my way, for example, to watch TV just after lunch.

And the emphasis in the article is revealing. Quote : "In a report published Wednesday, the regulator said that 15.4 million Brits had subscriptions to Netflix (NFLX), Amazon (AMZN) Prime Video and a streaming service offered by Sky (SKYAY) in the first three months of 2018. The number of people paying for TV subscriptions with operators such as Sky, BT (BT) and Virgin Media, was 15.1 million". Sure, those figures could seem worrying. And yet at the top, there is this: "the number of Brits who subscribe to streaming platforms has exceeded those who pay for traditional satellite and cable services, according to Ofcom". So in other words there has been a shift mainly from one form of unconventional television to another.

[Beef Oven!]

I think pay as you go would be fairer. Or maybe top-slice the benefits budget - after all, they don't work and watch more telly than most, lounging around all day not looking for work.

[Lat-Literal]

I think pay as you go would be fairer. Or maybe top-slice the benefits budget - after all, they don't work and watch more telly than most, lounging around all day not looking for work.

Your view is one of someone heading towards 60 who never or rarely watches television. That places you in a tiny, almost non existent cohort but of those who are also in there expect to see the parliamentarians, the academics, the lawyers and the financiers. An example of Pay as You Go would be the £7-8 one-off watch tonight's match fees that are advertised on Talksport. To see your team's match on each of the 38 season weeks, that is over £300. For your money, you get just under 60 hours of broadcasting. So - if the average viewer of television is currently watching just 3 hours of it a day, that equates to £300 for 20 days worth of television per annum. More money needed for the other 345 days on the calendar.

[french frank]

Not sure where you found all the dat/info, Lat, but there seem (on the surface) to be some non-sequiturs. Some thoughts:

According to Ofcom, nine in ten people watched TV every week in 2017, for an average of 3 hours 23 minutes a day. Those aged 55+ accounted for more than half of viewing in the UK. Consequently to say that the average age of a BBC1 viewer is over 60 is misleading.'

I don't follow you: the market researchers speak to actual viewers, ask what they watched and collect data about them: if they say the average (mean?) age of a BBC1 viewer is 60, it's presumably on the basis of their data analysis?

In time terms, the average age of any sort of television viewer is unlikely to be very much different.

Why is it unlikely (if I've understood what you say here, which I may not have done)?

To believe that so few people are not watching BBC1 as it is presented is to believe that the younger audience is small for, among other things, Dr Who, Match of the Day, Mrs Brown's Boys and Strictly Come Dancing which has peaked at 11m viewers representing over 43% of television share. And I don't believe it for one minute. Indeed, the BBC itself tends to justify the inclusion of programmes on BBC1 on the basis that the audience for them is broad and diverse. Otherwise, they say, those programmes would have to be broadcast elsewhere.

Where do you get the point that 'the younger audience is small' for Doctor Who &c? And what would count as 'small' (in fact, what is meant by 'the younger audience')?

'So what can one believe? As recently as Summer 2018, CNN Business in an article entitled "Brits can't get enough of Netflix and Amazon Prime" explained "Television and audio-visual viewing by Brits […]. Well, I'm sorry but when I watch music videos on You Tube that to me is not watching television [... ] So in other words there has been a shift mainly from one form of unconventional television to another.'

What you are calling 'unconventional television' is what they describe as 'audiovisual viewing' - surely nothing to disagree with there? Yes, there's been a shift since the days when there was no Netflix or YouTube and no smartphones … the data is designed to quantify the changed circumstances.

[Lat-Literal]

Not sure where you found all the dat/info, Lat, but there seem (on the surface) to be some non-sequiturs. Some thoughts:



I don't follow you: the market researchers speak to actual viewers, ask what they watched and collect data about them: if they say the average (mean?) age of a BBC1 viewer is 60, it's presumably on the basis of their data analysis?

Why is it unlikely (if I've understood what you say here, which I may not have done)?



Where do you get the point that 'the younger audience is small' for Doctor Who &c? And what would count as 'small' (in fact, what is meant by 'the younger audience')?



What you are calling 'unconventional television' is what they describe as 'audiovisual viewing' - surely nothing to disagree with there? Yes, there's been a shift since the days when there was no Netflix or YouTube and no smartphones … the data is designed to quantify the changed circumstances.

Thank you for your comments.

On 1 and 2, I accept there are various strands.

It sits in the context of the BBC being worried about losing young people. What I am suggesting is that it sounds from what they are saying - ie most BBC1 viewing is among the over 60s - that this means it is more popular with the over 60s. There are a lot of problems associated with that lack of clarity including the way in which future content may be steered and even justification for its existence. Actually, the over 60s watch more television generally and especially via the television set where the definition of television viewing is unequivocal. I expect if figures were produced for the cartoons on C-Beebies they would also be higher for the over 60s than one might expect. Certainly my grandparents used to say that they often preferred the children's programmes. Also a lot of older people have the TV on all day for company. Not always to view. And as a trend all people underestimate the hours they view.

So how realistic is the statement? And how do you factor in costs? On the latter, you could say that people must pay or pay more because they watch more or have it on more but that doesn't equate to levels of enjoyment and it is not the way of many other things. Attending 90 minutes of football is more expensive than spending a whole day at cricket. The price of seeing a short film at the cinema tends to be the same as the price of watching a very long film. And the prices being set at cinemas rarely even reflect a film's level of popularity.

On 3, there was a miss-type which I have now corrected. It should have said "To believe that so few people are watching BBC1 as it is presented" rather than "To believe that so few people are not watching BBC1 as it is presented". Hopefully this clarifies that I was disagreeing with any implication that younger audiences are small for flagship programmes on BBC1. Young here means anything under the early 60s as that is where they have made the distinction although I am mainly referring to the under 35s and the under 24s. The history of Dr Who - a programme I have never liked - is of itself an interesting study in how different things have grown to appeal to a range of ages. Blame Harry Potter for that sort of change.

On 4, I think we are agreeing but the way in which they talk about these things it sounds like non television challenges have never occurred before. The video. The DVD. Were these factored in as other television viewing as Netflix is factored in now or were they, as I suspect, treated as separate activities? No more a competitor than, say, ju-jitsu or knitting?

[eighthobstruction]

....I filled in the BBC Have Your Say form....I am 65 not well off at all no pension credit[12 year old car]....I wanted to be unambiguous and voted for no subsidy....and a comment that BBC /Lord Hall shouldn't have given way to Whittingdale in the first place....leaves any new govt the incentive to popularly -bring back the subsidy....

[french frank]

What I am suggesting is that it sounds from what they are saying - ie most BBC1 viewing is among the over 60s - that this means it is more popular with the over 60s.

I would take that, certainly, to mean that the over 60s spend disproportionately more time/more hours per week watching BBC One (and, as you say, television "generally") than all the other age groups. Availability to watch (being retired) might not be an indication of relative popularity among age groups. Broadcasters have to factor in quite a lot of data when deciding what is scheduled for airing at peak times.

Actually, the over 60s watch more television generally and especially via the television set where the definition of television viewing is unequivocal.

I suppose the television data is collected primarily for the benefit of the industry so they get to define it!

I expect if figures were produced for the cartoons on C-Beebies they would also be higher for the over 60s than one might expect. Certainly my grandparents used to say that they often preferred the children's programmes.

Indeed - good children's programmes can be widely appreciated (cf also R3's Pied Piper programmes). But broadcasters will want to know how many children watch their children's programmes. So Radio 4 dropped its children's programmes (as did Radio 3) because too few children listened. And I think Blue Peter has been moved to CBBC.

Back to how to pay:

And how do you factor in costs? On the latter, you could say that people must pay or pay more because they watch more or have it on more but that doesn't equate to levels of enjoymentand it is not the way of many other things. Attending 90 minutes of football is more expensive than spending a whole day at cricket. The price of seeing a short film at the cinema tends to be the same as the price of watching a very long film. And the prices being set at cinemas rarely even reflect a film's level of popularity.

Technically, broadcasters could use the AI scores, measuring 'how much X was appreciated'! But you're right - or are you? Isn't that down to the 'market'? People do buy what they enjoy/appreciate … Moving to radio: Radio 3 should be more expensive than Radio 1 because it has a higher AI. But there is also the question of the raw materials. All other things being equal, should BBC 'customers' be required to pay more because broadcast costs are higher? Or because fewer people listen? Or because it records fewer listening hours than Radio 1?

On 3, there was a miss-type which I have now corrected. It should have said "To believe that so few people are watching BBC1 as it is presented" rather than "To believe that so few people are not watching BBC1 as it is presented".

Yes, that clarifies the query!

On 4, I think we are agreeing but the way in which they talk about these things it sounds like non television challenges have never occurred before. The video. The DVD. Were these factored in as other television viewing as Netflix is factored in now or were they, as I suspect, treated as separate activities? No more a competitor than, say, ju-jitsu or knitting?

Well, some things are more comparable than others. I'm told it's easy enough to knit and watch television (if you can knit) …

[teamsaint]

Competition for " Most vacuous , useless., shapeshifting politician " would be intense.

But I'd be happy to put a few quid on Nicky Morgan.

[antongould]

Competition for " Most vacuous , useless., shapeshifting politician " would be intense.

But I'd be happy to put a few quid on Nicky Morgan.

I’m afraid she’d be long odds on ts ...........

[teamsaint]

I’m afraid she’d be long odds on ts ...........

Well yes, good point AG. Not much value in a punt on the Baroness on that particular contest.