8. How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016?

[Serial_Apologist]

Ta vints for that info. Odd if they don't send a reminder.

[barbirolli]

In response to post #40:

Essentially this is what I meant by saying "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...", though for reasons of length I didn't want to go into details. If the licence fee were genuinely a monthly one, everybody would be paying the annual fee (whatever that might be) divided by twelve.

This is the fault of expressing the annual fee as a monthly or weekly equivalent: it doesn't seem all that much, but that is not what the household actually has to pay, at least at the outset of any instalment scheme.

[Anna]

... 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.

Yes, I got that as well, but I never got an email, I've just checked my bank statement - I pay £12.12pm, which I think is exceptionally good value for what I listen to/watch. Face it, it's less than the cost of a couple of packets of fags or four pints of beer!

[french frank]

Sunday Telegraph reports the result of its own ICM poll:

"Seventy per cent of voters believe that the BBC licence fee should be abolished or cut, according to a new ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph.

"Nearly half of those questioned – 49 per cent – said the charge should be scrapped entirely, while a further 21 per cent said the current £145.50 price should be reduced.

"There was wide support for the idea of the BBC developing alternative sources of income, such as through advertising, while ending its funding from the licence fee. "

It mentions the government consultation which these questions are part of. I think it's quite important that there are thoughtful responses which aren't simply based on the personal wishes of individuals. I'll go through the replies on this thread again, but I think that advertising and subscription should be ruled out. Licence fee favoured as being the best of a bad lot. But there was a lot of consideration - and I think the best solution - for general taxation backed by some body (ad hoc?) which is totally independent of both the BBC and government.

[Beef Oven!]

Sunday Telegraph reports the result of its own ICM poll:

"Seventy per cent of voters believe that the BBC licence fee should be abolished or cut, according to a new ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph.

"Nearly half of those questioned – 49 per cent – said the charge should be scrapped entirely, while a further 21 per cent said the current £145.50 price should be reduced.

"There was wide support for the idea of the BBC developing alternative sources of income, such as through advertising, while ending its funding from the licence fee. "

It mentions the government consultation which these questions are part of. I think it's quite important that there are thoughtful responses which aren't simply based on the personal wishes of individuals. I'll go through the replies on this thread again, but I think that advertising and subscription should be ruled out. Licence fee favoured as being the best of a bad lot. But there was a lot of consideration - and I think the best solution - for general taxation backed by some body (ad hoc?) which is totally independent of both the BBC and government.

Not surprising results.

Advertising and sponsorship would create the right sort of dynamic. Taxation would perpetuate the problems associated with any body or agency that functions by spending other people's money.

[french frank]

Not surprising results.

Advertising and sponsorship would create the right sort of dynamic.

When times get hard the commercial broadcasters find it hard enought to raise advertising revenue and wouldn't welcome a giant like the BBC entering the market to snaffle a large proportion of what's available. Not sure how sponsorship could raise the kind of sums needed.

Taxation would perpetuate the problems associated with any body or agency that functions by spending other people's money.

There's no perfect solution. The BBC has always argued that the licence fee preserves the link, in the public's mind, between the money they pay and the programming they get for it. But with there being more and more competition, I'm not sure that's a good thing anyway - especially if people don't bother with BBC programmes and still have to pay.

[Beef Oven!]

When times get hard the commercial broadcasters find it hard enought to raise advertising revenue and wouldn't welcome a giant like the BBC entering the market to snaffle a large proportion of what's available. Not sure how sponsorship could raise the kind of sums needed.

There's no perfect solution. The BBC has always argued that the licence fee preserves the link, in the public's mind, between the money they pay and the programming they get for it. But with there being more and more competition, I'm not sure that's a good thing anyway - especially if people don't bother with BBC programmes and still have to pay.

I'm not sure that broadcasting advertising funding is a nil-sum-game. Can't be dismissed as easily as that.

And if you are worried about people paying for BBC output that they don't consume themselves (I know I'm not), then you wouldn't want to pursue a general taxation model. That would give you elements of the worst of both worlds; people filling their boots while not contributing a single penny, and people paying considerable amounts, while partaking of nothing the BBC offers.

[french frank]

I'm not sure that broadcasting advertising funding is a nil-sum-game. Can't be dismissed as easily as that.

It appears to be what the commercial sector fears. I have read that they wouldn't support it. The other point is that, although people may suggest advertising as a source of revenue, they also don't want the adverts - and welcome a public service without them.

And if you are worried about people paying for BBC output that they don't consume themselves (I know I'm not), then you wouldn't want to pursue a general taxation model. That would give you elements of the worst of both worlds; people filling their boots while not contributing a single penny, and people paying considerable amounts, while partaking of nothing the BBC offers.

But that way there's nothing identifiable as being 'for the BBC'. It would just be like all the other public services that you may pay for but don't use - schools, libraries, social services &c.

[Beef Oven!]

It would just be like all the other public services that you may pay for but don't use - schools, libraries, social services &c.

Precisely - do we really want to add to the burden on the exchequer?

[french frank]

Precisely - do we really want to add to the burden on the exchequer?

But the burden isn't on the exchequer - it's on the taxpayer who no longer has to pay for a TV licence.

[Beef Oven!]

But the burden isn't on the exchequer - it's on the taxpayer who no longer has to pay for a TV licence.

So who is the tax paid to? Am I missing something? I think I must be!

[aeolium]

I'm not sure that broadcasting advertising funding is a nil-sum-game. Can't be dismissed as easily as that.

Here are my arguments against advertising:

1) There is not enough to go around for the commercial operators plus a large-scale PSB (BBC income c £3.6 bn from the licence fee currently).
2) An advertising-based model could not allow major and very expensive series to be created - particularly for instance Attenborough's wildlife series (it's noticeable that there have been no comparable series on commercial TV) or indeed minority arts programming which ought to be part of a PSB remit yet would not interest advertisers because of the small audience.
3) People don't like advertising and increasingly there are technological ways to avoid seeing it, e.g. by recording programmes and fast forwarding through ads (apparently around 50% of viewers with digital video recorders in the US skip ads). It's not obvious that advertising in its traditional form can survive this.
4) I think the experience of commercial TV (and, arguably, commercial radio) has shown that quality diminishes when audience size is the sole criterion of value (as it is for the advertisers).

My view is that if there is to be public service broadcasting - and some may think there is no need - then it should be funded by some universally collected income, either licence fee or general taxation. It is irrelevant that some people who contribute may never watch or listen to PSB programmes: the point is that PSB programming is ultimately like other public services good for the society as a whole, and therefore those who contribute are contributing to a public good, as those who never visit a library nevertheless contribute to it because it is a public good. I've said before why I think taxation is a fairer system of financing public service broadcasting, providing ways can be found to secure both editorial independence from government and continuity and sufficiency of income, but I understand the views of those who support the licence fee system even though its inequities are possibly undermining support for the BBC as a whole.

[Beef Oven!]

Here are my arguments against advertising:

1) There is not enough to go around for the commercial operators plus a large-scale PSB (BBC income c £3.6 bn from the licence fee currently).
2) An advertising-based model could not allow major and very expensive series to be created - particularly for instance Attenborough's wildlife series (it's noticeable that there have been no comparable series on commercial TV) or indeed minority arts programming which ought to be part of a PSB remit yet would not interest advertisers because of the small audience.
3) People don't like advertising and increasingly there are technological ways to avoid seeing it, e.g. by recording programmes and fast forwarding through ads (apparently around 50% of viewers with digital video recorders in the US skip ads). It's not obvious that advertising in its traditional form can survive this.
4) I think the experience of commercial TV (and, arguably, commercial radio) has shown that quality diminishes when audience size is the sole criterion of value (as it is for the advertisers).

My view is that if there is to be public service broadcasting - and some may think there is no need - then it should be funded by some universally collected income, either licence fee or general taxation. It is irrelevant that some people who contribute may never watch or listen to PSB programmes: the point is that PSB programming is ultimately like other public services good for the society as a whole, and therefore those who contribute are contributing to a public good, as those who never visit a library nevertheless contribute to it because it is a public good. I've said before why I think taxation is a fairer system of financing public service broadcasting, providing ways can be found to secure both editorial independence from government and continuity and sufficiency of income, but I understand the views of those who support the licence fee system even though its inequities are possibly undermining support for the BBC as a whole.

Your are arguments are set-out nicely - Thanks. three responses from me that cover the elements of what you've said:

I don't think we know that there is not enough money to go around - that argument seems to be something of an assumption, rather than the evidence-based fact that some people present it as. Perhaps there is more than enough money available. Soccer, albeit a bigger financial quantum, manages beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

People don't like advertising? People don't like paying for things either! Not sure this point really says anything.

Universally collected? Like the license fee, or a poll tax? If that was the case, I'd be with you all the way. I fear however it will end up as another addition to the general taxpayer and the exchequer. But I reiterate, if it's collected universally, it gets my vote.

[french frank]

So who is the tax paid to? Am I missing something? I think I must be!

An appropriate sum would be added to every taxpayer's tax bill: just as the ordinary taxpayer foots the bill for jobseeker's allowance, the NHS, national defence, the Iraq war &c &c.

The exchequer doesn't have any money except what is paid in through taxes - general (personal) taxation, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax ...

The advantages of this are:

1) that TV Licensing - and the collection costs associated with it - are abolished.

2) Every taxpayer contributes a proportionate sum, rather than one member of the household paying and the rest having the service free. This increases the number of people paying (I think it would be from c 25m to c 30m), with each paying a sum proportionate to taxable income rather than everyone paying the same amount regardless of income. And the necessary tax arrangements already exist to determine how much people pay.

It also means that people like me who don't have a TV and therefore have no licence would also chip in our share, according to our means, just as we chip in for locally funded and nationally funded services that we shan't use.

I would have an independent supervisory body that would set the amount that the BBC should receive annually/every five or ten years (as the government does now) and ideally it should stipulate the amount that should be allocated by the BBC towards the kind of public service programming as aeolium refers to, rather than have the BBC starving some areas of funding in order to splash out on popular entertainment to attract a big audience. At present, they feel 'obliged' to do this because many licence fee payers won't watch the BBC if they don't, and will moan even more about paying the licence fee for programmes they don't watch.

In fact, with the right conditions, I think this is the system I would favour.

[french frank]

I would add to the previous: if my independent body set the amount that the BBC was to receive, that would determine how much the taxpayers should pay. And that would be a hypothecated amount which would bind the government to 'refund' the amount to the BBC.