Future of the TV licence fee

[french frank]

What about subscription radio? That would have to be bundled with other services, wouldn't it? I can't see how it would work.

[mangerton]

Anna, ff - I was thinking more about TV access, which is much easier to control. Every channel could be encoded - no difficulty about that, and the technology is there now. I see exactly what you both mean about radio, and I must confess I can't see how it would work either, short of coding the signals, with access (like TV) by a smart card or a pin code. That would require new receiving equipment and would be political suicide for whichever party introduced it.

[french frank]

Anna, ff - I was thinking more about TV access, which is much easier to control. Every channel could be encoded - no difficulty about that, and the technology is there now. I see exactly what you both mean about radio, and I must confess I can't see how it would work either, short of coding the signals, with access (like TV) by a smart card or a pin code. That would require new receiving equipment and would be political suicide for whichever party introduced it.

The reason why the radio licence was abolished in the first place was the inability to track domestic usage at a reasonable cost. Same now, I presume. You could, of course, have BBC One funding Radio 3 but I'm not sure that BBC Four funding Radio 2 would work in the same way

[Dave2002]

What about subscription radio? That would have to be bundled with other services, wouldn't it? I can't see how it would work.

I could guess, though. The bundling would be such that the one channel you really wanted to listen to would be bundled with a whole lot of other dross which you'd still have to pay for, thus multiplying the cost to you by a large factor, and at the same time making you "indebted" to those who actually wanted to listen to the rubbish stuff, and therefore unable to criticise, or recommend that their services be curtailed.

If there were several channels you wanted, they would, of course, be in different bundles.

[french frank]

The bundling would be such that the one channel you really wanted to listen to would be bundled with a whole lot of other dross which you'd still have to pay for, thus multiplying the cost to you by a large factor, and at the same time making you "indebted" to those who actually wanted to listen to the rubbish stuff, and therefore unable to criticise, or recommend that their services be curtailed.

aka the TV licence fee?

[Anna]

The bundling would be such that the one channel you really wanted to listen to would be bundled with a whole lot of other dross which you'd still have to pay for

Yes, as in Sky - you cannot just subscribe to Sky Arts (which I believe some years ago you could, now you have to bundle it with a package) However, I had quite forget there is no radio licence, and it's too problematic to control, so as R3 listeners we shouldn't be worried, it'll still be free.

[french frank]

However, I had quite forget there is no radio licence, and it's too problematic to control, so as R3 listeners we shouldn't be worried, it'll still be free.

Free at the point of use. Not 'free' - the money has to come from somewhere and it's not clear where any of the money for radio services would come from if TV becomes subscription by service, rather than "BBC". Or where the the money for the orchestras would come from. If it's one glorified subscription for BBC services, how does that differ from the licence fee (except that some people wouldn't subscribe to the BBC at all)?