"Most BBC radio stations to become unavailable for international users"

[teamsaint]

Does this represent how discredited the BBC has become for some of us?



How much do people think the BBC will actually SAVE?

My point is that , like it or not, the licence is under threat. If politicians deem it to have had its time , an alternative will need to be found.

The BBC may retain substantial support , but there are a lot of people who resent licence fee,which has some clear unfairness, and there are media powers who encourage this.

[Serial_Apologist]

My point is that , like it or not, the licence is under threat. If politicians deem it to have had its time , an alternative will need to be found.

The BBC may retain substantial support , but there are a lot of people who resent licence fee,which has some clear unfairness, and there are media powers who encourage this.

I was wondering, in part because we are often told the licence fee is to pay for BBCTV, not radio.

[Ein Heldenleben]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread about the removal of these stations. It’s all to do with rights costs . When the BBC buys rights to music and indeed most copyrighted content it generally buys rights for UK transmission only. That’s because foreign rights ,especially US ones , are very expensive. A Tv programme could pay thousands of pounds to licence some US commercial tracks if they wanted global clearance. That’s why you don’t hear much Elvis Presley in BBC dramas.
Although radio “needle time” costs are much less they still add up.
To those who listen to or watch the BBC abroad and don’t pay the licence fee I would invite them to make a contribution to the BBC’s costs. To those who complain about constant cuts I’d just point out the 30 per cent cut the BBC has had in real terms to the licence fee since 2000 plus additional costs of services like S4C and The World Service. The German TV licence fee is considerably more expensive - but it’s much less of an issue in that country.

[teamsaint]

I was wondering, in part because we are often told the licence fee is to pay for BBCTV, not radio.

Ok . I tend to assume that most people know that a modest part of the fee pays for national and local radio.

[LMcD]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread about the removal of these stations. It’s all to do with rights costs . When the BBC buys rights to music and indeed most copyrighted content it generally buys rights for UK transmission only. That’s because foreign rights ,especially US ones , are very expensive. A Tv programme could pay thousands of pounds to licence some US commercial tracks if they wanted global clearance. That’s why you don’t hear much Elvis Presley in BBC dramas.
Although radio “needle time” costs are much less they still add up.
To those who listen to or watch the BBC abroad and don’t pay the licence fee I would invite them to make a contribution to the BBC’s costs. To those who complain about constant cuts I’d just point out the 30 per cent cut the BBC has had in real terms to the licence fee since 2000 plus additional costs of services like S4C and The World Service. The German TV licence fee is considerably more expensive - but it’s much less of an issue in that country.

£181 (€ 220.32) as against £169.50..

[Sir Velo]

BBC radio 3 not available abroad? Philistines! Barbarians!.Vandals!

No trailers; no bleeding chunks? No inane prattle at Breakfast? No FNIMN? No The Squire? no Katie Derham? :

[oddoneout]

Ok . I tend to assume that most people know that a modest part of the fee pays for national and local radio.

Most people didn't think about it, even years ago when radio was something that was used more widely. It is called TV licence, all the pay up exhortations focus on TV. I am one of those who continue to pay to support radio, even though my viewing of BBC TV is minimal and the general content is of less and less interest. I must confess that this year I did waver somewhat; the combination of the cost increase and the now minimal use of R3, thanks to Mr Jackson's efforts, have considerably reduced the personal benefit. The balance is moving into solely supporting a principle rather than a commodity I want and use, and that needs consideration in view of other demands on my money. A tipping point would be the final demise of my TV set as I would then have to join the 21st century which would potentially give the option of not needing a licence.

[oddoneout]

Can you folks on the Septic Isle listen to WDR or France Musique, for example? I know that the various France Musique podcasts are easily accessible from Germany (where I am).

I can(and do) listen to such stations on my PC - but not to Sounds... It is possible that the lack of ancillary equipment such as separate speakers is the issue, but the lack of adequate volume even when I am sitting right beside the box of tricks, whereas I can generally hear the online stations adequately across the room does not engender positive feelings towards the Beeb!

[Ein Heldenleben]

Ok . I tend to assume that most people know that a modest part of the fee pays for national and local radio.

The BBC licence fee income is about £3,8 billion . The total radio budget is about £500 million. Where it gets complicated is that the BBC has about £1,8 billion of commercial income but I suspect the overwhelming part of that is earned by TV (esp drama and documentaries) and online . It’s estimated that if the licence fee had gone up by inflation the BBC would have had 1,2 billion of extra income. Go back twenty years and, it would be even more. The consequence - an estimated 30 per cent less UK originated television , the trashing of local radio and much of regional television and more chat , less live music on Radio 3.

[Roger Webb]

I can(and do) listen to such stations on my PC - but not to Sounds... It is possible that the lack of ancillary equipment such as separate speakers is the issue, but the lack of adequate volume even when I am sitting right beside the box of tricks, whereas I can generally hear the online stations adequately across the room does not engender positive feelings towards the Beeb!

The BBC, to its credit broadcasts at a higher dynamic range - especially on live concerts - an effect of this on high quality streams is to make the average level seem lower. Many European stations limit the dynamic range to all delivery methods, DAB, FM and internet streams....just listen to France Music live concerts! One minute, during a quiet bit, you can hear every shuffle and cough in the audience, next the orchestra comes in tutti and it disappears to the back of the stage. FM in this country used to be like this ( maybe it still is), but the stream online is not compressed at source...although the AAC codec is a form of compression, it is much more subtle than simply turning the wick up on quiet bits and down on the loud ones!

[oliver sudden]

My late father-in-law (who was South African) used to refer to us as the Benighted Kingdom, which I found a tad patronising.

(‘Septic Isle’ is Arthur Daley malapropising Shakespeare, if I remember right…)

[hmvman]

(‘Septic Isle’ is Arthur Daley malapropising Shakespeare, if I remember right…)

Could be appropriate, though, given the antics of our water companies....

[Cockney Sparrow]

The BBC licence fee income is about £3,8 billion . The total radio budget is about £500 million. Where it gets complicated is that the BBC has about £1,8 billion of commercial income but I suspect the overwhelming part of that is earned by TV (esp drama and documentaries) and online . It’s estimated that if the licence fee had gone up by inflation the BBC would have had 1,2 billion of extra income. Go back twenty years and, it would be even more. The consequence - an estimated 30 per cent less UK originated television , the trashing of local radio and much of regional television and more chat , less live music on Radio 3.

My initial reaction on a quick scan of posts here was this question the BBC could pose "it will cost £xxxxxxxx to grant rights to access Sounds out of the UK. Foreign Office - would you like to pay £xxxxx to extend the UK's soft power?". After being lumbered with the costs of benefit payments (over75's free licences) restraint of licence fees and other undermining maneouvres from Geo Osborne and his like, I'm not sure the BBC are to be blamed for a hard nosed view of expenditure.

I recall reading in Private Eye that the Dept Culture (etc) have been searching for a way to preserve the BBC - the criminalisation of the very poor non-licence fee payers (disproportionately women) is simply unacceptable. It has found the options closing off - a levy on streamers etc. IIRC (not 100% sure) running into potential conflict with the Tech giants who have recently prostrated themselves and paid their way into the Court of the Bronzed Man Child at Mar A Largo. Conflict which it has to be said we cannot afford)

I also agree with the sentiment before - we are a benighted country - for a start, not as prosperous as we think we are - not in relation to the standard of living, in all respects private and societal, that we have come to expect.

[LMcD]

I also agree with the sentiment before - we are a benighted country - for a start, not as prosperous as we think we are - not in relation to the standard of living, in all respects private and societal, that we have come to expect.

We may not be as prosperous as we were, but we do have a VERY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP with wotsisname in Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Ein Heldenleben]

My initial reaction on a quick scan of posts here was this question the BBC could pose "it will cost £xxxxxxxx to grant rights to access Sounds out of the UK. Foreign Office - would you like to pay £xxxxx to extend the UK's soft power?". After being lumbered with the costs of benefit payments (over75's free licences) restraint of licence fees and other undermining maneouvres from Geo Osborne and his like, I'm not sure the BBC are to be blamed for a hard nosed view of expenditure.

I recall reading in Private Eye that the Dept Culture (etc) have been searching for a way to preserve the BBC - the criminalisation of the very poor non-licence fee payers (disproportionately women) is simply unacceptable. It has found the options closing off - a levy on streamers etc. IIRC (not 100% sure) running into potential conflict with the Tech giants who have recently prostrated themselves and paid their way into the Court of the Bronzed Man Child at Mar A Largo. Conflict which it has to be said we cannot afford)

I also agree with the sentiment before - we are a benighted country - for a start, not as prosperous as we think we are - not in relation to the standard of living, in all respects private and societal, that we have come to expect.

A levy of on streamers isn’t going to happen with Trump in the White House . It’ll be perceived as a back door tariff

There is no current technical solution to BBC funding which satisfies the following three tests other than the much maligned licence fee
- universality of access . Subscription doesn’t work for those who use free to air services eg set top boxes and Aerials - there are millions of them
- impact on other Public services broadcasters - adverts on the BBC would destroy ITV C4 and C5’s revenue base overnight
- independence of the BBC . Funding through taxation would move the BBC towards state broadcaster status. What happens then is the situation in France and Italy where the state broadcasters are perceived rightly or wrongly as Government mouthpieces. Of course the endless tinkering with the licence fee by both political parties has led to the same sort of perception here.

in the last twenty five years there have been at least a half dozen reviews into BBC funding - they always come up with the licence fee as the only practical means of funding.

the future for UK domestic owned media is bleak. ITV will almost certainly get taken over by a US or Middle East conglomerate. C4 is teetering on the brink and the BBC has been cut to the bone - largely for political reasons.
I hope you enjoy Apple Netflix and Amazon - pretty soon that’s what will be left.