Future of the TV licence fee

[aeolium]

We went round the loop of considering whether the BBC should be funded out of taxation some while back, as I started one thread on that topic. As I understand it, the licence fee is not a tax (though you may feel it is), and there seemed to be consensus in previous debates that it did offer the possibility of political independence from government and other parties.

Yes, there is also a discussion under the DCMS questions about the financing of the BBC. I certainly don't share that consensus about the licence fee guaranteeing political independence and it remains mystifying to me how those who do share it explain the ousting of the BBC Chairman and D-G in 2004 or the recent government-ordered licence fee freeze. No licence-fee supporter has imo convincingly squared those circles.

If it's rolled into taxation, then other considerations might come into play. It does seem that TV take up is substantial, so there may not be many people who are so poor that they can't watch it. If you could not afford food, clothing and heating, would you really need TV?

Perhaps.

I think TV take-up is extremely high - it's estimated at between 97-98% of UK households. This makes the TV licence as close to a tax as makes little difference. It is technically voluntary, though my suspicion (quite unsupported by evidence!) is that for the most part those who don't have a licence choose not to have one because they don't like TV rather than because they can't afford it. Around a fifth of the population were estimated to be living in relative poverty (< 60% of average income) a few years ago, and there were around 180,000 prosecutions for non-payment of licence fee last year, so there may well be some causal link here. As food and energy prices rise higher than income more people will struggle to pay their essential household bills and the TV licence fee. Of course the argument will be made that they don't have to have a TV. Yet these may well be people for whom the TV is their main social contact with the outside world as they are unable to afford the entertainments that others can.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the AV argument is relevant to the funding debate; many such arrangements [av v fpptp majority] make little real difference most of the time [coalition any one?] and systems that seem pernickety fail to win trust because they lack decisiveness and clarity ... it is the argument of the pro pernicketies that we need more complex arrangements for when simple clear decisiveness is unfit for purpose ... and this is a very hard case to make amidst the noise of every day life; much easier in the salon eh ....

however funded, payment for the BBC must fit the purpose of the institution, simply, clearly and at low cost - nothing else will do ... but the purposes of the BBC must be established first .... or accepted in their present form more or less .. and then debate how to pay ...... if the Tory argument that there is no such thing as society, and no such thing as a benefit to society, and even if this were true only the market offers efficient solutions, then broadcasting in the round should be left to the market and the Tory chums can make their corporate loot .... and then continue their assault on the £££££ in health education, justice and so on ...

the BBC and R3 are still incredibly good at what they do; cost little and add great value to all of our lives and communities

in comparison we currently support banking:

Estimates of the implicit
subsidy to major UK banks vary from around £6 billion (Oxera (2011)) to over £100 billion (Bank of
England (2010))

this is at least £2bn pa in excess of the current BBC spend ..

[french frank]

I hadn't realised that TV Licensing had been contracted out to Capita since 2002, and that the contract was renewed last year.

And on BBC transparency:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/3253290/information-commissioner-orders-bbc-to-reveal-incentives-in-500m-capita-contract/?intcmp=rel_articles;pblc-sctr;link_1

[Richard Tarleton]

I hadn't realised that TV Licensing had been contracted out to Capita since 2002

OT, Capita seem to do all sorts of things besides handling BBC complaints and licensing - you seem to hear their name everywhere. They do army recruitment (that doesn't seem to be going too well), disability assessment () - is there no end to their, er, talents? I think we're going to find out they're secretly running the country.

[french frank]

OT, Capita seem to do all sorts of things besides handling BBC complaints and licensing - you seem to hear their name everywhere. They do army recruitment (that doesn't seem to be going too well), disability assessment () - is there no end to their, er, talents? I think we're going to find out they're secretly running the country.

Including all the Freedom of Information requests?

[aeolium]

further thoughts ..... and in any case a fee is a fee [ie a price] not a tax; it is the criminality of non payment that makes it a tax as opposed to a civil liability for use of service without payment ... and as a price it has no moral need to be progressive or non regressive, merely a reasonable payment for value received [and actually indistinguishable form a subscription?] ...are you suggesting the cover price of the Guardian is regressive? or the Sun?

But I suggest it is not a price or a subscription in the same way as the Guardian or the Sun is. Anyone can choose to pay for the Guardian or the Sun - and most choose not to pay for either of them. But the BBC is generally regarded as a public service, and the income from the licence fee that funds it as public money - hence the powerful debates about how the BBC operates and how it uses the money. Because of the near-universality of TV usage I think there is an obligation that public service broadcasting should be funded progressively as every other public service is funded, especially if you think funding for PSB ought to increase. Why are there so many prosecutions for TV licence evasion if the fee is easily affordable - are all the criminals opportunists or absent-minded?

[french frank]

But I suggest it is not a price or a subscription in the same way as the Guardian or the Sun is.

More like having to pay for the Guardian when you only want to read the Sun. TV (God knows why!) is now regarded as an essential of life.

Why are there so many prosecutions for TV licence evasion if the fee is easily affordable - are all the criminals opportunists or absent-minded?

Because it is an essential of life for people who can't afford to go to the cinema, or the theatre, or a concert (and in places the opportunity does not exist) or participate in any other recreation that costs money? Part of 'social inclusion' (which one is free to scoff at, if one wishes).

But as the BBC expands and costs more to produce, it becomes even more of a 'luxury item'. Think a family loaf of bread at £10 a time.

[aeolium]

TV (God knows why!) is now regarded as an essential of life......Because it is an essential of life for people who can't afford to go to the cinema, or the theatre, or a concert (and in places the opportunity does not exist) or participate in any other recreation that costs money? Part of 'social inclusion' (which one is free to scoff at, if one wishes).

Yes - the point I was trying to make.

"O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest things superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is cheap as beast's."

[french frank]

further thoughts ..... and in any case a fee is a fee [ie a price] not a tax; it is the criminality of non payment that makes it a tax as opposed to a civil liability for use of service without payment ...

There's a very thin line between non-payment of the licence fee being a criminal offence (which currently it isn't) and non payment of a fine for non payment of the licence fee (which is).

[Dave2002]

however funded, payment for the BBC must fit the purpose of the institution, simply, clearly and at low cost - nothing else will do ...

Cost versus quality? OK - I'm well enough off to have been able to go to Glyndebourne several times this year. Some of the performances there have been excellent - some not so. Many of those who attend are well off I'd surmise, yet they are subsidised by others through the Arts Council and other sources - including the Daily Mail! Similar considerations apply to the Royal Opera House.

It's very hard for me to defend this - I barely can. Yet I'd rather see something done well, even if it is expensive, than something done on the cheap, at minimal quality level. So my point here is that the BBC should be providing value for money (cost low), but at the same time maintaining quality and standards, and not simply sinking to the extent that is seems to have been doing in recent years with "popular" programmes on both TV and radio.

[french frank]

So my point here is that the BBC should be providing value for money (cost low), but at the same time maintaining quality and standards

Definitions, definitions. That is exactly what the BBC claims to have done - and be doing.

[Dave2002]

Definitions, definitions. That is exactly what the BBC claims to have done - and be doing.

I suppose they'll try to justify their actions post hoc based on only a few measures available - such as approximations to audience figures. Thus they'll justify broadcasting most of the rubbish which gets put out. It'll be miles away from anything anticipated by Lord Reith, but maybe his views are more or less discredited now.

[french frank]

Can anyone with experience of subscription services explain how they work? If the BBC were funded by subscription, would that mean subscribing to each individual channel/ station? Could it be to BBC television and/or BBC radio? Or to BBC services in general?

And how does one prevent people using the services without paying the subscription?

[mangerton]

Can anyone with experience of subscription services explain how they work? If the BBC were funded by subscription, would that mean subscribing to each individual channel/ station? Could it be to BBC television and/or BBC radio? Or to BBC services in general?

And how does one prevent people using the services without paying the subscription?

I suppose it could do, and in many ways that would be the fairest way to do it. I and I imagine many others never watch or listen to certain parts of the BBC's output. Satellite and cable services are run now on a subscription basis, with subscribers paying for a package of channels. Access is controlled by a smartcard inserted into the decoding box.

[Anna]

I don't have a subscription, I have a FreeSat box and dish. I can see how, as in Sky subscribers, it's controlled via a smartcard in the box (although Sky viewers get BBC free - how could they split that?) I cannot see how accessing radio content could possibly be controlled, as in; car radios, portable radios, etc.,