8. How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016?

[Thropplenoggin]

Say 3 TV progs a week over a 52 week year = 156 TV progs. At a Licence Fee of £145.50, that means you're paying just 93p per TV programme. Add in the Radio programmes you listen to on the imperfect Podcast system (and even though you don't have to pay for Radio content, it is still funded from the Licence Fee) and "all that money" seems a bit harsh.

You have conveniently forgotten that much of what I watch and listen to are repeats. So it would seem I am paying for the production of Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads? 30 years after the fact, all those endless history documentaries of arm-wagglers (Brian Sewell) on BBC4 (also repeats), and BaL and COTW podcasts from yesteryear.

[french frank]

I think it's much more likely that the Beeb would discontinue its serious Music provision completely if it had to rely on the funds that came in from the few of us who seriously care about such provision.

The only 'defence' of such music would be the existence of the Proms and the BBC performing groups. Quite a lot of BBC 'public service' going down the drain along with Radio 3.

Back of a ciggie packet calculation, I think the cost of R3, Proms, Performing Groups would in the coming years need to be around £100m. With 2m listeners, that would be, say, 1m subscribing households at £100 pa. Just for Radio 3 (but only about 5% of R3 listeners listen only to R3, and I think they may watch TV). So, with the best will in the world (which we could not necessarily attribute to the BBC) a reasonable subscription would probably only cover a music station based on CDs. That would be my (possibly over gloomy) prediction.

[Anna]

The problem with subscription would be reduced access to what Radio 3 (for instance) offers, or once offered those who otherwise would not know, and its ghettoisation on behalf of a remaining but thereby ever-shrinking more knowledgeable minority

Back of a ciggie packet calculation, I think the cost of R3, Proms, Performing Groups would in the coming years need to be around £100m. With 2m listeners, that would be, say, 1m subscribing households at £100 pa. Just for Radio 3 (but only about 5% of R3 listeners listen only to R3, and I think they may watch TV). So, with the best will in the world (which we could not necessarily attribute to the BBC) a reasonable subscription would probably only cover a music station based on CDs. That would be my (possibly over gloomy) prediction.

I think you're both right - it shouldn't be subscription, particulary if frenchie's jottings on a fag packet are correct. Advertising is a no-go area, (look at Aviva wagging the tail of the dog re Downton) general taxaton runs the risk of it being diverted elsewhere, so it has to be licence fee

[aeolium]

One point in favour of subscription is the increasing fragmentation of the media and proliferation of digital sources of entertainment, information, availability of international films, serials, dramas. The BBC TV audience has been continually declining in the last decade or so under the pressure of these alternatives, and there is now direct broadcast to cinema/internet available for live music/opera/theatre. How much longer can the BBC survive as a national public service in these circumstances, or simply become another voice in the crowd? And if it is the latter, people will start to argue why should it have a privileged position? And of course the BBC's reaction may well be to shore up its audience with ever more populist material, further eroding that which made it distinctive in the first place.

The other argument in favour of subscription is that it would ensure unequivocally independence from political interference in that the purse-strings would not be in the hands of politicians. Those who argue that the licence fee preserves political independence are turning their eyes from the effective ejection of Chairman and DG in 2004 following a BBC political report, and the freezing of the licence fee for 6 years by the current government.

On the other hand, there are ferney's arguments in msg 15 and the unpredictability of subscription income. Film Four IIRC used to be subscription-based but quickly abandoned it, and Sky Arts can only subsist because it is effectively subsidised by the other Sky channels and particularly the Sports and Movies premium channels which are probably why most people subscribe. And once you go down the subscription route you can say goodbye to public service broadcasting, which retains a great value in its responsibility to provide fair, accurate and impartial reporting (compare, e.g. Fox News) as well as mounting major documentary series, drama serials and major musical projects like the Proms (not to mention the BBC orchestras). It is not the idea of public service broadcasting that is at fault, but its implementation.

[french frank]

It is not the idea of public service broadcasting that is at fault, but its implementation.

There is another question coming up which may touch on this. If the public service broadcaster doesn't produce public service broadcasting, what's the point of its existence?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You have conveniently forgotten that much of what I watch and listen to are repeats. So it would seem I am paying for the production of Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads? 30 years after the fact, all those endless history documentaries of arm-wagglers (Brian Sewell) on BBC4 (also repeats), and BaL and COTW podcasts from yesteryear.

Then your question is a fair one: why do you bother to pay for it? Cheaper to get the DVD set, get rid of your telly and just have the radio and i-Player (neither of which you have to pay for). I'm not being sarcastic: if my own access to the Beeb was as little as yours, I wouldn't pay the Licence fee.

For my own requirements, the Licence Fee at under 40p per day is even better value than the bargains on Amazon.

[teamsaint]

Say 3 TV progs a week over a 52 week year = 156 TV progs. At a Licence Fee of £145.50, that means you're paying just 93p per TV programme. Add in the Radio programmes you listen to on the imperfect Podcast system (and even though you don't have to pay for Radio content, it is still funded from the Licence Fee) and "all that money" seems a bit harsh.

The cheapest Sky subscription package that I could find is £21.50 per month - which is more than £100 per year more than the cost of the Licence Fee, and doesn't include Radio programmes or the cost of running the various BBC Orchestras and Vocal groups.

Aeolie's point about the cost to those on benefits is valid, as is frenchie's suggestion that the free Licence should be made available for people in receipt of some of these benefits. But I doubt that Subscriptions would serve anyone's interests: I think it's much more likely that the Beeb would discontinue its serious Music provision completely if it had to rely on the funds that came in from the few of us who seriously care about such provision.

You can get a lot of free to air stations via Freesat from Sky.

http://www.sky.com/shop/freesat/home/what-can-i-watch/

It doesn't seem to have any channels like SKY 1, and of course you need to pay a license fee.


Following on from the suggestion a while ago that BBC radio may become subscription based, i would think that digital takeover will make the possibility of a basic Free (or license funded service) and a range of pay "add on" services a very real one.
It might have benefits? or not.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You can get a lot of free to air stations via Freesat from Sky.

http://www.sky.com/shop/freesat/home/what-can-i-watch/

It doesn't seem to have any channels like SKY 1, and of course you need to pay a license fee.

Is this any different from an ordinary Digibox, ts? Again, not a leading or rhetorical question, but a genuine query: is there, amongst those 240 different channels anything that isn't available from other freeview providers?

Following on from the suggestion a while ago that BBC radio may become subscription based, i would think that digital takeover will make the possibility of a basic Free (or license funded service) and a range of pay "add on" services a very real one.
It might have benefits? or not.

It might. I don't believe (sad, cynical old git that I've become - nay, that R3 since Birt has made me become) that it will. I think that anything beyond mainstream Music from the Western Classical Tradition from 1500 - 1950 would go the way of serious Jazz, World and discussion programmes. (Which doesn't mean that this content won't go down the pan if the Licence Fee is maintained .

[teamsaint]

Is this any different from an ordinary Digibox, ts? Again, not a leading or rhetorical question, but a genuine query: is there, amongst those 240 different channels anything that isn't available from other freeview providers?


It might. I don't believe (sad, cynical old git that I've become - nay, that R3 since Birt has made me become) that it will. I think that anything beyond mainstream Music from the Western Classical Tradition from 1500 - 1950 would go the way of serious Jazz, World and discussion programmes. (Which doesn't mean that this content won't go down the pan if the Licence Fee is maintained .

I really wouldn't know if it offers a wider scope than Freeview. I think it may, but its much of a muchness. I only have it because I have a sky setup already installed.

I tend to agree with you about a pay" add on" model

Not sure where you would go to compare. Footy and sport coverage on SKY is very goodbut also very expensive. (£40 per month).
One problem for SKY is that non legal internet streams, and pubs using foreign rights feeds of live games must be a threat to their revenue.
IF the BBC was considering pay options, there would likely be ways to avoid the charge, EG peer to peer sharing?

[aeolium]

There is another question coming up which may touch on this. If the public service broadcaster doesn't produce public service broadcasting, what's the point of its existence?

The BBC falls back on its Charter, its public purposes and its service level agreements to justify its status as a public service broadcaster - and also the lack of agreement on what constitutes public service broadcasting. This runs into your DCMS question 3 thread. And here are the horns of the dilemma. On the one horn, if PSB is reduced to a narrow criterion, with information, education, and entertainment of a type that is not supplied elsewhere by the market, the risk is that much of the public will feel excluded from something for which they are paying. On the other horn, if a very wide interpretation of PSB is allowed, which allows generalised entertainment of a kind also provided by commercial broadcasting, and in which education and culture are required to be fully inclusive, then there is the risk that the quality of the broadcasting is so diluted that it alienates the natural supporters of PSB while not satisfying those who can find alternative (and sometimes better) provision of the entertainment they want. I think the BBC is balancing rather precariously on the second horn

[french frank]

On the one horn, if PSB is reduced to a narrow criterion, with information, education, and entertainment of a type that is not supplied elsewhere by the market, the risk is that much of the public will feel excluded from something for which they are paying.

But they wouldn't be paying so much! . Given the scope and scale of the BBC, most licence fee payers pay the biggest proportion of their licence fee for programming that they don't use. And anyone who doesn't watch sport is paying far more for other people's sports programmes than they are paying for 'high culture'/the arts.

This where the hugely popular services like Radio 2 (which actually costs more than Radio 3) would be cheap on a subsciption basis (um, I think...).

No one has yet put their head above the parapet on what the BBC/PSB are for? I think I'll make it a separate thread as 1a).

[Sir Velo]

There is so much etravagance, and yes, let's say it, plain waste, at the BBC. This is my main objection to the licence fee. It's bureaucracy gone mad; salaries are patently ridiculous. Some of the larger in-house productions are absolute gravy trains, having their own travelling entourages of chefs (sic), make up artistes; hairdressers; "special advisors" etc - all on the payroll.

Above all, as we can see from FoR3's own correspondence with the BBC Trust, there is no accountability. The BBC badly needs reform, and its method of funding is the place to start. The circumstances which gave rise to the creation of the BBC no longer pertain, and I for one would not mourn its passing in its current guise.

[MrGongGong]

There is so much etravagance, and yes, let's say it, plain waste, at the BBC. This is my main objection to the licence fee. It's bureaucracy gone mad; salaries are patently ridiculous. Some of the larger in-house productions are absolute gravy trains, having their own travelling entourages of chefs (sic), make up artistes; hairdressers; "special advisors" etc - all on the payroll.
.

Hummm
Is that based on experience ?
I would think that "make up artistes" would be rather useful if one was making a costume drama
as would a catering truck

Maybe it's an "etravagance" to expect actors and musicians to eat while away on a gig ?

Sell the Neumann's and take a trip down to Maplins ?

[barbirolli]

There are four obvious alternatives: ...

There are four obvious options; you can only have two alternatives.

[barbirolli]

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.

Second option: advertising. I do not think advertising is altogether consistent with PSB. Programmes would have to be produced in order to generate revenue, rather than according to the requirements of PSB. This is not a trivial point. PSB should generate programming with a balance between what the public wants, needs and should have. Ads might possibly be sold, for example, on R3, as it has a small, but attractive audience to a limited range of commercial concerns, but that range is so limited that advertising revenue would not, I think, sustain the station. There would therefore have to be cross subsidies from other more lucrative BBC output, such as R1, R2 and television. The BBC would have to learn to manage this system of balancing commercial and PSB needs from scratch in addition to the present need to balance programmes between public "wants, needs and should haves". It is questionable whether this could successfully be achieved.

Furthermore, there is the essentially political problem of what to do if the total advertising revenue was insufficient to sustain unviable but necessary parts of the BBC's output. Could there be, say, an annual government grant to top up the advertising revenue? Unfortunately, this would have to be larger in periods of economic downturn when government funds are likely to be under pressure, since these will be just those times when advertising revenue will fall.

In short, this option does not look to be an attractive one.

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.

No, this wouldn't work.

Licence fee it is, then. However, I'd change it from an annual fee to a monthly one, payable monthly in advance in all cases. The present instalment schemes use the excuse that it is an annual fee effectively to double up monthly payments at the beginning of the scheme. That is too much for many households who instead (like me) prefer only to watch iPlayer, or simply continue to watch sans licence risking prosecution.

Incidentally, the digital switchover was the cue for me to go iPlayer only, precisely because of the investment required in a digibox. That led me to consider whether the amount of live telly I watched was worth the licence plus a digibox, and I decided it wasn't.

Sorry this is so long and boring; I tried to keep it short!