8. How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016?

[teamsaint]

not long and boring , Barbi.
imagine the length and cost and tedium if it was put to , say, a public enquiry.

Think you did a great job !!

(but I think that subscriptions somewhere along the line for some services are more likely than you suggest. Digital switchover and DRM obsession aren't just done for a bit of fun....... and money talks.... but as Aeolium suggest, the powers that be will still want us hooked on their "news" outlets.)

[Sir Velo]

Subscription - Are there not technical issues relating to a subscription solution? Would that not entail the end of FM radio broadcasting (OK, that may well be what the BBC and government want to do, but I oppose that in principle, since many radio listeners use that perfectly satisfactory method of reception, including me). Would AM broadcasts also be ended? Would it not mean all existing radio sets (including digital) would only be able to receive commercial stations? All potential listeners to the BBC would be required presumably to purchase new digital radio equipment having card slots to allow only subscribers to listen.(?) Will subscribers be allowed to have multiple cards to cover several radios which they may legitimately have (car, office, two or three at home, portables...) which would leave the system wide open to inevitable abuse? Requiring potential listeners to invest heavily in new hardware hardly squares with the behaviour of a PSB body. How would fake digital radio cards be detectable when radios are simply passive recipients of signals, not plugged in to phone or cable lines like TV boxes?

If someone gets radio or TV online, will the BBC ban the use of proxy servers to receive the streams? How will they be able to distinguish a subscriber from a non subscriber online in any case, when they may wish to view on a variety of devices, some mobile and not linked to any one IP address?

Will the BBC come off Freeview requiring more investment in new card-accepting digiboxes for poor old BBC viewers?

No, I feel subscription is not a viable option in view of the large investment required both by the BBC and its viewers/listeners if the broadcasts are to be denied non-subscribers.

Not sure about this. Given BBC radio is currently accessible to non licence fee payers I see no reason necessarily why this should change with subscription, unless you think that the licence fee should be extended to cover radio broadcasting? Furthermore, under the present licence fee regime there are huge financial and logistical implications in monitoring the use and abuse of the licence fee for television users. No reason why subscription should be any more prohibitive financially. In fact, it should be less of a burden in this respect.

Moreover, I cannot see why it should require quite the huge investment you envisage. Technically, it really does not present much of a challenge. TV channels are constantly being added to the subscription packages offered by the cable/satellite providers; some of the channels are offered by extremely small scale operations which quite clearly do not have anything like the BBC's financial muscle. To put it simply, you stick the BBC on one of these platforms, issue a viewing card and then people pay for which channels they want to watch.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Could the funding of the BBC Orchestras (and the BBC Singers) be maintained under any other revenue system than the Licence Fee? Would a subscription system enable funding for the Proms, for that matter?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And does funding have to be "either this or that": would it be possible/desirable to have, for example, a flat-rate Licence Fee of, say, £120 (a tenner a month) with an option to contribute extra for specific services? That way, everybody contributes to the whole corporation, but individuals can identify the area(s) with which they have greatest concern (R3, the World Service, BBC3, the R3 Controller's Christmas bonus ... ). A mix of Licence Fee and Subscription.

[aeolium]

What about funding the entire thing out of general taxation? Presumably this would entail a periodic public agreement between the BBC and the government as to what the total BBC budget should be over a number of years, rather like the present arrangement with the licence fee, the difference being that the government decides how the money is raised. There are two problems with this - the BBC becomes effectively a government department which calls into question the independence of the BBC itself. Secondly, it makes the BBC subject to the whims of government who could unilaterally change the funding agreement when the government itself changes, or fiscal restraint is being called for in other areas of government spending: "...all departments have to make cuts, why should the BBC be any different" etc, etc, ad infinitum ad nauseam.

But what this argument fails to appreciate is that the BBC is already subject to the whims of government under the licence fee arrangement. What do you think happened when the current licence fee freeze was set by government? The BBC had no say in the level - no-one else apart from the government. And this is potentially true of all licence fee settlements. In which case, how does the licence fee settlement differ from having an amount apportioned from general taxation? If it comes to finances, the BBC will never ultimately be independent of government action as it is the government that regulates the amount of the licence fee. And it should not be forgotten that the World Service until quite recently was literally part of the government in that it was funded within the Foreign Office budget. Yet as someone who used it quite frequently some decades ago when I was working overseas I did not believe that this status altered the independence of the BBC's WS operation, or indeed affected the quality of its broadcasting (arguably, it is worse now since it has been subsumed within the BBC).

In my view it is quite possible to set up a system whereby the governance of the BBC is properly independent - and works far better than it does presently under the wretched Trust arrangement - and its financing within general taxation is hypothecated and protected as a proportion of overall public spending, possibly via some charter which would require a substantial parliamentary majority (e.g. 2/3) to amend. The BBC has already agreed to greater oversight by the National Audit Office; it would also be answerable to the new independent body; and ultimately financially accountable to parliament. To me this would provided greater financial security and independence for the BBC than the present licence fee setup which as we have seen allows a single hostile government to effectively slash BBC income by 20% in real terms.

And above all, taxation is fairer, not penalising the poor like a poll tax. A monthly instalment payment is still beyond the means of most poor people. I know from working in Citizens Advice Bureaux that even a weekly payment is a serious drain on a small income - and the ability to pay in such small instalments mean that those who do are paying more on the licence fee in a year than a millionaire pays. How can that be right?

[french frank]

Welcome to barbirolli and thanks for some thought-provoking comments.

1. fhg - very good point. The orchestras/PGs used to be lumped with Radio 3 under a single budget, but they were separated a few years ago because they made Radio 3's budget horrendously out of step with all the other radio budgets. The Proms might be possible as long as the services that used them (other than R3) could include a contribution. It would make no difference to R3 since it already pays for most of the residual costs anyway (after ticket sales). But it would appear that Radio 3 would be lumbered with the costs of the PGs - a total of £29m last year. That would make subscription to R3 ... an interesting prospect

2. Going back to barbirolli's comments, the reason that the radio licence was abolished was because there was no realistic way of tracking radio use.

I certainly feel it would not be in the interests of the arts on BBC services to have a subscription system.

3. General taxation: in many ways it's the fairest system. Is it viable? Not so sure of the objections here. Whims of the government? Like freezing the licence fee and at the same time dumping additional costs on the BBC? A Royal Charter and Agreement which set out the Government's responsibilities, not just the BBC's, might be possible - PSB is a very sensitive issue and tying the hands of government in some ways would be positively desirable.

In fact, thinking of that, what about an independent body which in matters of PSB was both the governing body of the BBC (end the Trust now!) and, in this single matter the 'governing body', as it were, of the government?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

, not penalising the poor like a poll tax. A monthly instalment payment is still beyond the means of most poor people. I know from working in Citizens Advice Bureaux that even a weekly payment is a serious drain on a small income - and the ability to pay in such small instalments mean that those who do are paying more on the licence fee in a year than a millionaire pays. How can that be right?

It isn't - but that's one of the ways Capitalism works: the more money you have, the less things can cost and the higher the interest on your savings & investments. Would not the problems you describe (and I agree that they are considerable, and would be exacerbated by Subscription payment) be better solved by giving free TV Licences to those in receipt of certain Benefits?

[aeolium]

It isn't - but that's one of the ways Capitalism works: the more money you have, the less things can cost and the higher the interest on your savings & investments. Would not the problems you describe (and I agree that they are considerable, and would be exacerbated by Subscription payment) be better solved by giving free TV Licences to those in receipt of certain Benefits?

Possibly, but such privileges might also be easy pickings for a government with an austerity programme, egged on by a press hostile to the BBC and welfare claimants (not that we would ever have such things here of course ). And those privileges would not begin to tackle all the numerous inequities of the licence fee system whereby for instance students living in separate flats in a house each have to buy a licence yet a family in a large house perhaps with several TVs only need one - I think ff has come up with a few of these anomalies elsewhere.

[french frank]

You can pay weekly or monthly now by buying TV stamps. Can't quite grasp this, though, from the TV Licencing website:

"The TV Licensing Payment Card helps you pay for your TV Licence in regular weekly, fortnightly or monthly payments from as little as £5.60 per week. You’ll be sent a payment schedule showing how much to pay and when. You can pay online, by text, at any PayPoint outlet, or over the phone." That wouldn't be every week, presumably, because at 52 weeks that makes £291.20 p.a. - that can't be right, surely?

[aeolium]

You can pay weekly or monthly now by buying TV stamps. Can't quite grasp this, though, from the TV Licencing website:

"The TV Licensing Payment Card helps you pay for your TV Licence in regular weekly, fortnightly or monthly payments from as little as £5.60 per week. You’ll be sent a payment schedule showing how much to pay and when. You can pay online, by text, at any PayPoint outlet, or over the phone." That wouldn't be every week, presumably, because at 52 weeks that makes £291.20 p.a. - that can't be right, surely?

The way it works is that you pay for your first TV licence (under the weekly payment scheme) in 26 weeks and then you move towards fortnightly payments of the same amount to pay for your next licence. It does mean that in the second year you will pay no more than anyone paying annually, but in the first year you will pay 50% more. Also you are always paying for part of your following year's licence, i.e. in the first year you will start to pay for your second year's licence half way through the year. Not great, in my opinion.

[french frank]

Thanks - no, not great.

The intermediate between licence fee and general taxation would be to have (as I've suggested) free licences for those on benefit/FSMs, paid for - like those for the over 75s - out of taxation and absolutely no question of lumping this payment on the BBC (as this government tried to do with the over-75 exemption). Would that be viable, though?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

in a Tory nutshell the arguments anti the license fee.... the greatest damage done to the public service broadcasting ethic has been the self aggrandisement and self regard of the BBC Management

there is a point at which the license fee is too much and a lower one would be better; then all arguments would be otiose eg 50p a day equivalent ... but the institution must be truly independent, not the current fruity bunnies from meeja

[aeolium]

Thanks, calum - those statistics are appalling and illustrate the fantastic wastefulness and misery associated with the licence fee system, as well as the financial unaccountability of the BBC, which was allowed to inflate salaries, bonuses and expenses without any kind of control.

[Serial_Apologist]

Incidentally - without wishing to start another unnecessary thread - my licence renewal was up for payment on 17 October, having paid online last year. This year I have received no renewal form through the post. Has the BBC now stopped mailing these out, does anyone know?

[vinteuil]

Incidentally - without wishing to start another unnecessary thread - my licence renewal was up for payment on 17 October, having paid online last year. This year I have received no renewal form through the post. Has the BBC now stopped mailing these out, does anyone know?

... I don't know if you pay by direct debit? I do, and the last 'paper' licence I received - in August 2012 - said that it wd be the last paper licence they wd send me until 2016 - they are trying to go paperless.

They shd send you an e-mail confirming renewal. You cd check on -

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/update