Should the BBC be forced to scrap their license fee?

No, look at U.S. tv. The Simpsons are a rare jewel, all the more precious because of the vast wasteland of cr*p by which they are surrounded.

surely a BBC Sport digital channel is on the cards. cant believe they didnt do it already.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6273347.stm

For instance, they'd have to pay Jonathan Ross £17 million instead of £18 million per year. Heads will roll!

Tho i hate having to pay shit like eastender and the crap on radio 1 etc

I didn't realise so many other countries had them. I always thought it was a nice little British thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

wtf? do you feel like you own the police force too?

Frankly, while it annoys me no end that Ross gets his huge wad I'm happy because I use the BBC everyday, a lot. I feel that rather than Ross I'm paying for the things I like - BBC4, Radio 3, etc etc.

And (for info) the licence fee was £101 in 1999.

I don't feel the same way about, say, Tesco.

You don't even need to look abroad to see what happens when it's all about the ratings, just glance at the number 3 button on your remote. the BBC ain't perfect, but I don't want it to turn into ITV.

And I dunno about you guys, but I certainly get a tenner's worth a month out of the BBC.

We (i.e. my industry) have just started renegotiating the terms of business writers, directors, actors, technicians etc. follow with the BBC. In pretty much every area of revenue, the BBC are less able to afford to pay even currents fees, which themselves have gone down from the highs of a few years ago.

But multichannel TV and various new media have ripped apart the cosy relationships between broadcasters, producers and talent in all areas, while the BBC seems to be doing mostly good things to make sure its service isn't diluted more than it has to be. Hence the very wise and prescient concentration on internet services (which, btw, don't pay a penny to talent, the argument being that the BBC don't make any revenue out of them) and the realisation of Austin Powers' "BBC7" lyrics - channels like BBC3 and BBC4 are genuinely great sounding boards for new or niche programming and can and do act as a springboard to the terrestrial channels for the most successful of these.

From our point of view, the BBC is a vastly flawed, bureaucratic place where only the Jonathan Rosses of the world can negotiate top dollar. But without it, the TV and radio (and internet) landscape in Britain would be hugely different and almost certainly much less far-reaching and of much lower quality.

All presenters should be paid the same.

If Ross and Moyles or their agents don't like this they are free to take their "talents" elsewhere in the private sector.

Nobody is bigger, or should be, than the corporation.

L O S T?

xpost

ned, moyles brings in the punters cos the bbc built him up. he doesn't have such amazing gifts that no-one could replace him. of course he could get big money elsewhere because that's how markets work; but the beeb is in sticky territory with this. tracer hand will be along to say the bbc would be like pbs without those guys, but the old coutnerargument is, who cares if the bbc is no better than itv? i would actually pay £150 if the bbc opened its archive in some kind of view-on-demand stylee but its best days are long gone.

I don't agree that the beebs best days are long gone either - there was always a load of rubbish on it alongside top quality entertainment/education.

Not saying that's not too much just saying.

Back in the late '60s Simon Dee tried to throw himself about with regard to payment etc. and the BBC told him where to shove it. But now they seem to embrace such demands out of fear.

If the BBC were that strong, then surely their output would be good enough to attract viewers and listeners without the big name bait?

i do care, i still want things like free, GOOD football coverage and Planet Earth etc. i'm hopeful the BBC will always be able to do these tho they have lost it more with original drama and comedy programming - mainly because of American superiority in most departments it seems. Radio 1 is a mess obv. but the other stations all seem to be functioning fine. ultimately i do suspect their future does lie with their past tho, as you imply.

uh? they lost this in about 1990!

So now it's the BBC who's responsible for humanity's 10,000 years of celebrity worship??

uh, i'm talking about FA Cup, England games, major tournaments etc.

-- Euai Kapaui (tracerhan...), January 18th, 2007.

waht?

?!

the bbc is in a bind because it was once the monopoly broadcaster, and its culture and 'national' status derive from that. personally i think they'd do better keeping what was good from then and not competing with the commercial nets -- partly because they can't. most bbc stuff is utterly abject, even with the budgets. again this is because it caters to a now mythic homogenous 'national' audience with bullshit like 'doctor who'.

ie the salaries weren't quite so high back then? i could be wrong -- perhaps noel edmonds was the first to really make money.

well just imagine how much worse Doctor Who would be if it was on any other channel...

yes, so am i. i really did think quite hard about that before posting. but hey, i feel a sense of one-ness and calmness now, so all is good.

My understanding is that this is going to happen, though it'll take time to organise obv.

http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax

yeah this is otm but i guess i am a bit like bbc should back away from full spectrum dominance and do what other channels don't do. the problem is it would then be catering to a minority (though of course by definition it does already and it will go further that way whatever happens) and its budgets would come further under political attack.

but maybe this is all very steam-age: will channels even exist when ross's contract expires? (yes they will -- but you know what i mean, will station/brand identity mean so much then that 'BBC1' will have to be such a big deal?)

And remember, the BBC is ultimately public service broadcasting. JR is paid lots of cash because lots of people want to watch him. Anyone know how much Justin lee Collins is being paid on C4?

Certainly agree with repeating Law And Order.

The Graham Norton affair is a symptom of the personality-centred problem; sign him up for the big-bucks transfer from C4 without realising that what might make him worth that kind of money is only usable at a certain time of the day. Plus (as the actual Monday late night show proves) he's clearly past his peak. Whether that's to do with having to do endless Strictly Sound Of Music Fever-type "family" shows I couldn't say. But on some of these shows he looks one step away from putting the 9mm in his mouth in a Bill Hicks/Jay Leno "What have I done with my life?" style. The results certainly don't justify the expenditure.

-- Johnney B English (john.barlo...), January 18th, 2007.

lots of people want to watch him because he's been assiduously promoted and given a format that works (incidentally part of the appeal of the show is it has very famous people on it). star-making is a hell of an art and i almost respect that side of showbiz now more than the people on screen. they all get paid too; but it's a racket, really.

That implies that anyone famous who's given a chat show will automatically be popular and this clearly ain't true. The Charlotte Church Show, anyone?

i see yr point, but it's still madness. hollywood salaries are also madness but i don't have to fund a state alternative to it that feels the need to compete with the studios.

that said the bbc is into films, but typically middlebrow co-productions.

Jonathan Ross is the best mainstream interviewer (new take on classic Parky style) etc. on British TV right now. He's popular with almost everyone, he has experience and clout, and his bookers can get A-list talent. The top of the heap always gets paid disproportionate amounts.

The argument that because the BBC is public service it shouldn't compete on the most populist level is self-defeating because if it didn't then it WOULD become a PBS (which is a great thing per se) and the whole of mainstream TV would become like ITV - or, rather, ITV would be a shining beacon of quality among even more dross.

Public service doesn't mean a remit to make intellectual docos and open university slots and nothing else - it means catering for everyone, and most people like mass-market shows. That's it.

And the thought of the BBC's web presence disappearing sends a shiver down my spine.

As far as ITV is concerned, Cracker and Prime Suspect are "mass-market shows." That doesn't preclude intelligence and originality, and (un)fortunately the current ITV management are going to have to wake up to that and raise their game.

If the BBC spent even a tenth on their output of what they spend on advertising it they might get somewhere.

Well, the corp has received less than it is owed this year and the historical link between inflation and the BBC budget has been broken. Perhaps this will force them into a "smaller, cheaper, faster" mentality that's in step with today's stripped down, lean 'n mean commercial broadcasters.

if they just sack Jeremy Vine and John Humphrys they can have all my dosh

As long as Tw0 3nt3rta1n keep cranking out those back-catalogue DVDs...

I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a response from some of you stateside. How is PBS funded? What's it like?

"Individual donations from viewers like you represent the single largest source of support for public television stations around the country. And your support can take many forms, from becoming a member to volunteering to family events!"

Maybe us Brits better pay attention this could be the future for the beeb.

They're not one of the greatest broadcasters in the world right now

Do you mean here that they are not one of the top broadcasters in the world at the moment, because I think they probably are, or do you mean that the BBC's output at the moment does not justify the title of "greatest broadcaster"?

Basically they show a Doctor Who marathon and stop the show every 20 minutes to beg for money. Then if enough Doctor Who fans donate cash they can afford to buy another season of old Doctor Who reruns next year.

The rest is "documentary" and "news shows" funded by Exxon Mobile, Ford Foundation, Rockefellers, etc.

If we had a real option to subscribe to the BBC in the US, PBS would only be good for Sesame Street and some weird local things like Huell Howser. As other cable channels have started to pay more for BBC reruns and children's programming, PBS has gotten weaker and weaker.

That everyone is forced to pay TV Licensing; in other words, public money.

It's not as though the BBC are taking money away from starving children to pay for Jonathan Ross' hair stylist.

No, they're taking money away from ground-level services and making people redundant to pay for Jonathan Ross' hair stylist. Does that make it better?

Has the government increased funding for other areas as a result of giving the BBC the short end of the funding stick? Have they fuck.

Where's the logic in that? The BBC got the short end of the funding stick because they asked for it. "We're broke!" "Yeah, 18 million for Jonathan Ross and 10 million for Chris Moyles." Any private sector business run like that would have gone to the wall ages ago, and rightly so.

um, ok.

They ought to let me have a go at doing Mixing It and/or Late Junction. I'd do it like Dale Winton does Pick Of The Pops.

I'd sell off BBC1 and Radios 1 and 2, though. I don't see why the public needs to fund stuff that is commercially viable anyway.

As to the rest, yes BBCs 4 and 2 would, in utopia. And I listen to hours of Radio 5 a week and never hear Eamonn Holmes so, yeah, tis worth £150+.

xpost

The Cool Police, yesterday.

Patently unfair to those who chose not to own or watch television. You talk about television as if it is some fundamental right like education or public services when it simply isn't.

Everyone talks about being FORCED oh noes to pay the thing. No one is forcing you to do anything of the sort.

You can hardly choose to have other roads or other police - but you can certainly choose to spend your money on other entertainments.

Being a fundamental right is a sufficient but hardly a necessary criterion for government funding. I don't regard visiting the British Museum as a fundamental right but I'm OK with it receiving government funding.

You've obviously not been reading his contributions to ILX, mwap mwap mwap mwahhhhhh

um no but you live in a country that requires an educated workforce to keep itself running - so even if you don't have kids, other peoples' kids will be running power stations and giving you medical treatment etc.

surreal

-- the original hauntology blogging crew (miltonpinsk...), January 19th, 2007.

Oh we've definitely had this one before...
ffs haven't you just been to university? Don't you get your rubbish collected, don't you walk on the pavement, if you got ran over where would you go? Come on...

ihttp://www.impawards.com/1999/posters/baby_geniuses.jpg

haha OTM

Because, as I'm sure I've said here before, without them it becomes a worthy broadcaster, as anything that it does well is in danger of being sold off! Not to mention that huge hits -- like Dr Who, say -- generate tranches of cash which can then be spent on things like recording the croak of the lesser-spotted goat for some worthwhile World Service show.

Thing is, there is no educated workforce to keep this country running at the present time.
God, he's so right there. None at all. Country due to stop running ... oh, about next week, at the current rate of death. Will the last educated person please leave clear instructions about how to stop off the burny shiny thing near the top of the room thing?

BBC STEAMED BY FERAL NON-LICENSE PAYING GANGS: A Standard Reporter reports

Streaming will end up the key issue here; once everyone is able to pick and choose what they watch and when they watch it, payment can be adjusted accordingly so those who want the PBS-type stuff can pay for it and subsidise it at source.

I don't buy it. "Anything it does well" does not equal "commercially viable". From my perspective, there are programmes on BBC 4 that are "done well" and that are in zero danger of being commercially viable. Secondly, to argue that the mainstream stuff should be kept because it makes money for the BBC is a bit perverse when the whole point of public service broadcasting is not to be beholden to commercial pressure.

Public funding should be reserved for things that are worthwhile and yet are not catered for in a free market. A free market will never provide universal healthcare, for instance. But it will provide commercial television. On the other hand, it won't necessarily provide the stuff that BBC 2, BBC 4, Radio 3, Radio 4 etc broadcasts.

That aside, do you not see how the BBC 4 programmes benefit from being made at a TV production centre that also produces big-budget world-class commercial stuff? Or how having that sort of talent pool on the staff could be handy?

It's more perverse to say that because the BBC should be free of commercial pressure it shouldn't do things that are also commercially successful. The more cash it makes, the freer it is to pursue blatantly uncommercial activities.

The licence fee would also be in huge danger, because how do you justify paying all that for a purely non-commercial service that makes things which, almost by definition, the vast majority of payers don't want?

I suspect Planet Earth is self-funding and then some by being flogged around the world and repeated endlessly on UKTVHistory at home.

(x-p)

same way the tax-payer pays for the royal opera house, i guess. i probably just think the bbc should be like channel 4 in the '80s or something, not being lowest common demoninator (as they are now) and having some advertising income.

It's not an uncommon one, all the same. Branson admitted that First-class flyers on Virgin subsidise cattle class; the Guardian's Scott Trust runs AutoTrader and the local radio stations and so on purely to pay for publishing the Guardian. The BBC's reason for existing is to be a public-service broadcaster. If it does things which aren't public-service, it's because they support that role in some way. There's nowhere else -- ie, no shareholders -- for that money to go, after all.

"BBC1 funds all the minority channels".
Yes, it is more complicated than that. It's more like "The commercial successes help fund the uncommercial work".

as usual, NEIN DANKE

Looking at that schedule, yes, Burn BBC3. (Or maybe BBC3 = BBC1.5?)

BAN BBC3

10 Million for NO TV LICENCE

Some of the comments on that group astound me. For example:

Natasha Bullbusbutt Shelford (Nottingham) wrote
at 20:04 on 16 November 2008
of corse its them I DO NOT WATCH THE BBC SO WHY AM I PAYING FOR IT??????
they are GITS it is unfair whether they get money from dvertising or not i dont care They charge me for buying a T.V to watch MY d.v.ds My home movies MY virgin media I dont use there services and dont want them.
Pete why should I pay tell me I dont pay for someone elses shopping or a half eaten loaf of bread.or diesel because I drive.

please understand its all bull--it

Bring back the BBC2 Learning Zone.

I tend to agree with that.

Autumn Bullbusbutt Almanac

what's to agree with?

How does this detector van work? How does it know you are watching TV and not computer?

xp the bit about paying for something you might not use just because you have a television.

I find it hard to believe that someone could own a TV and not watch a MOMENT of the BBC, but for those who don't, I can understand why they would not want to pay for it. Obviously that comment is worded poorly, but the spirit of the complaint, that the system should be opt in and not opt out, and that opt out shouldn't mean forgoing your television set, is valid IMO. of course I am not british and don't know the situation all that well, so maybe there is more to it.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44227000/jpg/_44227405_youngones6_bbcpicgall.jpg

Oh no! Its the TV detector man!

the old trick eh? eat the telly

I don't have a car why should I pay for highways
I don't have kids why should I pay for schools
etc
etc
etc

People who don't use roads should not fucking pay for motorways, the end.

We're getting a massively improved public transport system (tens of billions) and the conservative voters are sooking because the ticket price will go up. Fer fack's sake.

certainly there's a distinction between a broadcasting corporation and public works and services

Well, sure, but the very nature of taxes is that everyone will pay for something they, personally, don't use, so "I never use it" is an irrelevant argument against any tax-subsidized service.

People who don't use roads

When I leave my house, I tunnel to work. Occasionally I float there.

Yeah the "I dont use it" argument isn't a good idea, because where d'you draw the line? Taxes go on all sorts of things, and I for one would rather know I dont have to pay more than $20 for my medications, can go to hospital for free, the ABC will continue to exist, etc, even if I wont ever use the schools, or much of the roads (tho I get taxis).

certainly there's a distinction between a broadcasting corporation and public works and services

THIS

I don't mind paying a tax on public services, but on someones elses ENTERTAINMENT. Please, next we'll be paying microsoft taxes because 'a lot of people use Windows'

That basically already happens. Powerpoint is a helluva drug.

The BBC is far more than an entertainment service.

Also re: the facebook group LOFUCKINGL at students bitching about paying the licence fee. They'll be complaining they've got nowhere to park their cars in a minute.

The BBC is far more than an entertainment service.

whatever, still doesn't change my point.

See also: most decent record shops closing because of students bitching about having to pay for CDs when they can download them for free.

society is in the gutter

In our day kids used to kick a CD in the street.

The BBC is far more than an entertainment service.

whatever, still doesn't change my point.

― Ant Attack.. (Ste), Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:17 AM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

I thought your point was...

I don't mind paying a tax on public services, but on someones elses ENTERTAINMENT.

But please to elucidate further.

My suspicions are the BBC would change quite considerably for the worse were they to scrap the license fee. I don't quite understand why other media organisations persist in calling for it when it would spread advertising spend even more thinly in a declining market.

Because they don't think things through?

Unless the various vested interests - Sky, GCap and so forth - think that no advertiser would ever want to spend money advertising on the BBC and thus force the organisation's closure but that really is Christmas Fairyland thinking.

Still, I suppose the Sun and Mail have to have something to react against - otherwise, what would be the point of them existing?

TS - putting your ad in the middle of Doctor Who vs whatever shite is on Sky One at the same time.

Unless Sky buys Doctor Who of course...

You don't think Futurama repeats can compete?

If the BBC suddenly had to raise money from commercial breaks, ITV would be even more fucked than it is now.

Surely the time is coming when you will have advertising during programmes, a bit like a web page

I'm suprised it hasn't happened yet

already has in the US

Unless the various vested interests - Sky, GCap and so forth - think that no advertiser would ever want to spend money advertising on the BBC and thus force the organisation's closure but that really is Christmas Fairyland thinking.

cf. the massive jump in the share prices of M6 and TF1 when President Sarkozy said that he would issue a decree banning the french equivalent of the BBC, France Televisions, from advertising in prime time.

already has in the US

OK, I didn't know that, we'll get it here soon enough

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v225/1312/19/s657376784_5148.jpg

Is this woman doing the old "half a face against a mirror" trick?

It's what made the BBC great

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/turquoisemoleeater/misc/harry_worth.jpg

cf. the massive jump in the share prices of M6 and TF1 when President Sarkozy said that he would issue a decree banning the french equivalent of the BBC, France Televisions, from advertising in prime time.

ding ding ding ding

le ding le ding le ding, you mean

dingue, man, crazy

^^^that woman.

Managed to get out of paying it for 10 years and was all set to go to court and state my case, but it doesn't work like that!

?

In our day kids used to kick a CD in the street.

In my day we used to kick students in the street.

the bbc is great. the 'but i never use it' must be the strawiest of straw men ever.

you don't like the welfare state but you like two pints of lager and a packet of crisps

i've never watched the welfare state.

that two pints fella wants shooting, though.

Everyone connected with that show wants shooting

Sky is around £480 a year. Far better value for money!

Even just buying The Sun every day is £65 a year.

No wonder Murdoch is doing so well.

how much is the licence fee? does everyone have to pay it?

I don't know, I've never paid it.

my mum pays mine too

I think it's about £120.

more like £140

Currently £139.50 per year for colour, £47 for black & white.

They still sell black and white tellies?

Yes

^^^Xmas for the kids sorted!

Any kids worth their salt nowadays wouldn't be happy unless it was a 108" LCD screen telly with built-in Youtube.

in my day we used to kick tv licence inspectors in the street.

> Surely the time is coming when you will have advertising during programmes, a bit like a web page

they already have popups on virgin one telling you what's coming next about 2 minutes from the end of the program (ie during the climax). and bbc have been doing this during the end titles for a while (spoiling the doctor who closing theme for instance). i have also seen teasers in the other corner from the channel id (another bugbear) advertising upcoming shows, logos that tend to rotate and flash, logos that are there for an entire week prior to whatever it is they are advertising.

Of course, but real advertising, for baked beans or something I meant

For financing two series of The Young Ones I agree BBC license fees ought to be gleefully paid by every breathing mammal on the planet, but in practical terms, how do these mysterious detector vans bust you if you're watching TV on a laptop?

spoiling the doctor who closing theme for instance)

murray gold beat them to this tho

The government intends to discuss whether a TV licence fee is the right way to fund the BBC as early as next year, five years before the end of its charter.

Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, told Media Guardian that the coalition is "committed to the principle that the BBC should have a ringfenced pot of money over a multi-year period" and stressed his support for the BBC and its independence.

However, he believes changing viewing habits, with an increasing number of people watching TV content online, will make the annual charge for television ownership obsolete sooner rather than later. "We also recognise, as technology changes, we may need to adapt the way it's collected. It is not going to be possible to have a tax every time anyone buys a computer."

a ringfenced pot of money

£4.50

over a multi-year period

till 2012

Pointless reorganisation if you're going to 'be given a fixed sum of money from the government to cover any initial losses', ffs:

The growing use of the internet for viewing has made licensing TV sets outdated, according to right-wing think tank the Adam Smith Institute.

The BBC's current TV services could still exist with more flexible methods of funding, its report adds.

The report singles out the success of Sky with its subscription model, adding that the BBC could have "the global presence of a Hollywood studio but with a wider range of output".

It recommends the BBC begins to look at how it could raise funds through subscription in 2012, and that licence fee payers be given the option to stop paying their fees two years after that.

The BBC should be given a fixed sum of money from the government to cover any initial losses, it suggests.

Another article in the Sunday Times proposing something along similar lines (he now makes programmes for C4, but was a former BBC producer, just to give this legitimacy), but on a slightly diff angle in that many were prosecuted for not being able to pay, as if he cared.

Not reorganisation, but more like another step toward privatization: chip a bit here and there etc

The Sunday Times article was by David Graham, who wrote the Adam Smith Institute report.

The other article about BBC pensions was similarly hilarious.

Would love to read that Sunday Times article but unfortunately it's hidden behind their paywall WHICH IS ALMOST AS EXPENSIVE AS THE ENTIRE BBC LICENSE FEE.

Yes but if you don't like it Matt, you can take your business elsewhere. Unlike the dirty communist BBC.

Just call me a filthy pirate.

LOL at MDC #heresoneitweetedearlier