Influential House of Commons culture, media and sport select committee reports on future of the BBC.
Key features: -Abolition of BBC Trust to be replaced with 'public service broadcasting commission'
-Continuation of Licence Fee for 10 year duration of next charter, although decriminalised
-Licence Fee to cover recorded as well as live broadcasts, i.e. BBC iplayer.
-Full transparency to the NAO
From Media Guardian Today:
"Financial and editorial “mistakes” made by the BBC have prompted an influential cross-party group of MPs to call for the abolition of the broadcaster’s governing body in a wide-ranging report into the funding and future of the corporation to be published in the Commons on Thursday.
The culture, media and sport select committee recommends that the BBC should be subject to much more rigorous oversight and criticises the broadcaster for its handling of executive pay and payoffs, the Jimmy Savile affair and the false allegations made against the late Lord Macalpine.
In an 166-page report, the MPs recommend replacing the BBC Trust, currently responsible for regulation and oversight, with a single board while creating a more rigorous public service broadcasting commission to act as an external watchdog.
Additionally, the MPs recommend giving unrestricted access to the National Audit Office, the government auditor, to check the BBC’s financial accounts – access that the corporation has long resisted.
The report by the committee said there was no realistic alternative to licence fee funding in the short term, although it should be extended to cover the iPlayer “as soon as possible”. The report also called for non-payment of the £145.50 licence fee to be decriminalised."
".....A majority of the MPs voted to continue with the the licence fee funding system at least until 2026, when the BBC’s next royal charter expires. Only one Tory MP voted against the recommendation regarding funding, in a show of cross-party support for the fee which has been criticised"
Bonus prize: Anyone care to guess who the lone Tory MP was?!
That actually sounds alright considering.
The exchanging BBC trust for a PSB commission (presumably that will also govern the commercial PSBs too taking that bit away from Ofcom that actually have loads of other stuff to do these days so could loose this bit quite happily) its ok as its basically changing one organization for another.
Extending the time of the BBC's Royal charter is good but lets hope that there is leeway for the lf to go up.
The decriminalisation is alright but I would have it being taken from pay or benefits so people can't skip payments, that's not to say people have to pay it but if you are watching tv then it gets deducted, which would be a pain to change so likely people would only do it if they really don't want it!
The iplayer thing well I would like to know how they plan on regulating that without making the licence mandatory!
At least though the current system of the BBC being funded by the lf stays intact though!
Food for thought...the MPs know that the great British public spend more time with the BBC than any other broadcaster. Are they really going to destroy their main access to the public? I very much doubt it. They also know how much the BBC is valued by the public.
European TV via satellite and on-demand is NOT British you twonk so WHY should people who DON'T watch BBC broadcasts be subject to an ALL INCLUSIVE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO RULE???
Also, what is it with right-wing nutcases like you who have to HIGHLIGHT or SHOUT every operative or emotive WORD in everything they SAY?
It's NOT like SHOUTING or TYPING IN CAPITALS is PARTICULARLY clever. NOR does it add an OUNCE of CREDIBILITY to YOUR argument. In fact it makes YOU look a BIT "STOOPID"!
Or grant to local authority could be reduced by amount they'd be expected to receive according to household numbers. Thus the effects of failure to collect would conveniently fall on the council.
Good point - "Localism in action" as the Tories seem to boast about (when it suits), whilst maintaining a degree of control over them
Food for thought...the MPs know that the great British public spend more time with the BBC than any other broadcaster. Are they really going to destroy their main access to the public? I very much doubt it. They also know how much the BBC is valued by the public.
I agree but that's why they do it through the back doors, freeze funding add other costs in, death by a thousand knives.
My own personal objection would be that it's sneaky and would affect the editorial independence of the show. Writers forced to change storylines to meet manufacturers demands. And shows like Watchdog and Top Gear would be under huge pressure not to offend companies that may be supplying other BBC shows.
And PP and sponsorship alone just wouldn't come anywhere near to funding the BBC. No broadcaster in the world has managed to fund itself with just PP and sponsorship, not even low cost channels like Dave.
i bet what they actually end up with will be more expensive with either a levy of some kind (license fee under another name) or subscription. why don't they just switch to adverts they advertise there own stuff all the time anyway. if they do that then we haven't got to pay for any of it.
i bet what they actually end up with will be more expensive with either a levy of some kind (license fee under another name) or subscription. why don't they just switch to adverts they advertise there own stuff all the time anyway. if they do that then we haven't got to pay for any of it.
i would rather they interrupt my programme three times an hour to advertise products and their own stuff rather than me pay for any of it. i can always fast forward through all the adverts and save myself £145 a year
i bet what they actually end up with will be more expensive with either a levy of some kind (license fee under another name) or subscription. why don't they just switch to adverts they advertise there own stuff all the time anyway. if they do that then we haven't got to pay for any of it.
How do you think the existing commercial broadcasters would feel about this, given that they already operate in an incredibly tough marketplace?
Or are you one of those people who think there is a bottomless pit of money to be spent on TV advertising?
i would rather they interrupt my programmer three times an hour to advertise products and their own stuff rather than me pay for any of it. i can always fast forward through all the adverts and save myself £145 a year
it has been mentioned a few times in recent pages regarding the effect the BBC taking adverts would have on other commercial broadcasters, so I'm not going to repeat it.
And your favourite programmes would end up being shorter to the tine of 9 - 12 mins for every hour.
i would rather they interrupt my programme three times an hour to advertise products and their own stuff rather than me pay for any of it. i can always fast forward through all the adverts and save myself £145 a year
That's why it's such a tough business. Advertisers know very well that many people fast forward through the ads, and are not prepared to pay anything like as much as they would in the days before this happened.
You don't seem to understand this basic point. There is not a bottomless pit of money to spend on TV advertising, and what's there cannot support another major broadcaster like the BBC. And that's before we even start to consider how the BBC would have to become just another commercial broadcaster, which isn't really the reason we have it.
i would rather they interrupt my programme three times an hour to advertise products and their own stuff rather than me pay for any of it. i can always fast forward through all the adverts and save myself £145 a year
As someone who detests adverts I'm happy to pay £145 or more a year to have programmes that are free of them.
Scrapping the BBC trust for a more rigorous body, and taking control of the finances with the National Audit Office, means more control of the BBC content and finances by the Government.
That is exactly the opposite of what should happen. It is perfectly obvious why politicians want those things, but do you all actually want more political control of the BBC?
Food for thought...the MPs know that the great British public spend more time with the BBC than any other broadcaster. Are they really going to destroy their main access to the public? I very much doubt it. They also know how much the BBC is valued by the public.
I think some MPs huff and puff a lot about the BBC and the licence fee, but the vast majority of MPs know that they try and destroy the BBC at their own peril.
Jeremy H(C)unt/Green or whatever he is calling himself these days, got away with treachery when he forced the licence fee settlement in 2010 with a shotgun to the BBC's head. Although, to be honest, Mark Thompson was a pushover and didn't fight the BBC's corner very hard. Make no mistake the real reasons why Television Centre was sold, why BBC Three is moving online, why BBC Four cannot make any original drama anymore, why the World Service is cutting its language services and why Newsnight took it's eye off the ball 2 years ago is due to cuts as a result of that forced licence fee settlement.
I am more optimistic now than before. There is an irony that the more the BBC is attacked from self interested parties, the more the public wake up to the huge value of the BBC and all that it stands for. There will be a revolt in this country, including by many who write on this forum if Murdoch, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, UKIP, Tory wonks like Philip Davies, Peter Bone and Christopher Cope dare to even attempt to undermine the single most important cultural institution this country has ever known.
I am part of the Save BBC Three campaign. It is huge, there are many thousands of young people who, during the consultation by The BBC Trust, have articulated why the Channel should remain on DTT. One of the biggest ever online petitions is about saving BBC Three. This is about stopping just one small limited evening television service moving online, yet the interest is huge.
Now imagine if the BBC made plans to close BBC Four or slash Radio 4's budget or stop making quality drama on BBC 1 as a result of cuts, or as some would have sell off Radio 1 and Radio 2, privatise BBC 1. There would be significant political unrest (especially if Radio 4 was hit!). Another irony is that the ones who value the BBC the most are those who are most likely to vote Conservative or UKIP. That should focus the mind of any government of a right wing persuasion!
You may be surprised to know but I'm not a raving socialist, but I absolutely detest political ideology that behaves like an accountant, knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. I am confident that the majority of the British public are the antithesis of this and any government that takes on the BBC will take on the people too. I've only ever been on 2 marches in my life and both were for the NHS. I will be the first in the queue to march for a strong, fully funded and independent BBC if necessary and I know a very large number of people who would do the same.
i would rather they interrupt my programme three times an hour to advertise products and their own stuff rather than me pay for any of it. i can always fast forward through all the adverts and save myself £145 a year
As others mentioned many times that is not economically viable, the advertising budget by companies wouldn't increase, there " spend" would be the same, so if there is more supply on adverts as the BBC Competes with ITV SKY, 4 and 5 then charges for ads will fall there would be a big battle ( like supermarkets now) income fall, for all ITV will cut its budgets, the others go subscription, more Jeremy Vile type shows, all to save 40 p per household per day! What can you get for 40p a day? And for the average family that's 10pm each per day!
it has been mentioned a few times in recent pages regarding the effect the BBC taking adverts would have on other commercial broadcasters, so I'm not going to repeat it.
And your favourite programmes would end up being shorter to the tine of 9 - 12 mins for every hour.
That's why it's such a tough business. Advertisers know very well that many people fast forward through the ads, and are not prepared to pay anything like as much as they would in the days before this happened.
You don't seem to understand this basic point. There is not a bottomless pit of money to spend on TV advertising, and what's there cannot support another major broadcaster like the BBC. And that's before we even start to consider how the BBC would have to become just another commercial broadcaster, which isn't really the reason we have it.
fair enough, i on the other hand am on the other side as in i dont hate adverts and would rather have an extra £145 in my pocket
Would you though? Sky, increasing subscription charges, a Virgin media, you would be worse off with wise TV, be careful what you wish for, it's not going to be what you will get.
I think some MPs huff and puff a lot about the BBC and the licence fee, but the vast majority of MPs know that they try and destroy the BBC at their own peril.
Jeremy H(C)unt/Green or whatever he is calling himself these days, got away with treachery when he forced the licence fee settlement in 2010 with a shotgun to the BBC's head. Although, to be honest, Mark Thompson was a pushover and didn't fight the BBC's corner very hard. Make no mistake the real reasons why Television Centre was sold, why BBC Three is moving online, why BBC Four cannot make any original drama anymore, why the World Service is cutting its language services and why Newsnight took it's eye off the ball 2 years ago is due to cuts as a result of that forced licence fee settlement.
I am more optimistic now than before. There is an irony that the more the BBC is attacked from self interested parties, the more the public wake up to the huge value of the BBC and all that it stands for. There will be a revolt in this country, including by many who write on this forum if Murdoch, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, UKIP, Tory wonks like Philip Davies, Peter Bone and Christopher Cope dare to even attempt to undermine the single most important cultural institution this country has ever known.
I am part of the Save BBC Three campaign. It is huge, there are many thousands of young people who, during the consultation by The BBC Trust, have articulated why the Channel should remain on DTT. One of the biggest ever online petitions is about saving BBC Three. This is about stopping just one small limited evening television service moving online, yet the interest is huge.
Now imagine if the BBC made plans to close BBC Four or slash Radio 4's budget or stop making quality drama on BBC 1 as a result of cuts, or as some would have sell off Radio 1 and Radio 2, privatise BBC 1. There would be significant political unrest (especially if Radio 4 was hit!). Another irony is that the ones who value the BBC the most are those who are most likely to vote Conservative or UKIP. That should focus the mind of any government of a right wing persuasion!
You may be surprised to know but I'm not a raving socialist, but I absolutely detest political ideology that behaves like an accountant, knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. I am confident that the majority of the British public are the antithesis of this and any government that takes on the BBC will take on the people too. I've only ever been on 2 marches in my life and both were for the NHS. I will be the first in the queue to march for a strong, fully funded and independent BBC if necessary and I know a very large number of people who would do the same.
(PS Thanks Ash for your kind words earlier)
Agree,
And isn't it funny, MPS always attack the BBC just before an election! Funny that! Maybe there very frightened of the BBC telling us the truth, the full truth and not Spin.
How do you think the existing commercial broadcasters would feel about this, given that they already operate in an incredibly tough marketplace?
Or are you one of those people who think there is a bottomless pit of money to be spent on TV advertising?
Not so much how the existing commercial broadcasters would 'feel' about it....more that if the BBC was allowed to compete for advertising on an equal basis as them, they would be destroyed. ITV would die almost overnight. Channels 4 and 5 wouldn't do much better. Think about it.....advertising meeting for a large brand wanting a big impact....an advert on prime time BBC1 or ITV? There would be no contest. Which channel shall we advertise on during the World Cup? BBC1 of course, ITV barely gets a fraction of viewers if there's a choice. The BBC could then also start aggressive bidding for sports rights with all its new money. It could command huge audiences for Premiership matches, far more than Sky ever has. So, there would be BBC Sport Channels 1-8. What would Sky do then to draw in its audiences to buy ridiculously high priced packages?
People who suggest privatising the BBC, selling off Radio 1 and 2, scrapping the licence fee, forcing the BBC to take advertising (take that BBC you bunch of lefties) are like people who play a game of chess but can't see more than 1 move ahead. It also tells me what kind of people they are and often I find that they are supratentorially challenged and they lack superego development -generalising, of course!
Shouldn't people be given a choice whether or not they want to pay for BBC services rather than being forced to?
Well it's the facts that if we all pay the price is very very low, 40p per day and people who are on low income, pensioners etc gets entertainment on a fair cheap basis, the " I am all right jack" attitude will in the end cost far far more and give worse TV and force people on low incomes not to have TV.
Now people will not put into pensions unless there forced to do so, which is for their benefit, would people opt out of the NHS if they could?" I am alright my company pays BUPA etc, why should I pay for the NHS ."
The thing is there are a few in this country who want something for nothing, IE the free lunch, there is no such thing as a free lunch!
Forcing people is in fact fairer, it spreads the cost your forced to pay for water, forced to pay for power there is no real choice. Would people by car insurance if they were not forced to do it? A few skip travel insurance as they do not have to pay it as an accident will never happen to them or their family!
A few in the UK have a "Me only culture, " " I do not care for others, " well for 40p a day it's a false saving.
i would rather they interrupt my programme three times an hour to advertise products and their own stuff rather than me pay for any of it. i can always fast forward through all the adverts and save myself £145 a year
Who do you think pays indirectly for the adverts?
While 'speeding through the ads' is done by some (although you still get a break in programming) what is the long term impact of this on the commercial sector likely to be?
While 'speeding through the ads' is done by some (although you still get a break in programming) what is the long term impact of this on the commercial sector likely to be?
TV licence payers who only watch and listen to the BBC.
Yes "we all" pay for the TV adverts by buying advertised products in shops.
Why do we need adverts anyway?? I can search the internet for anything I need, I can compare them, I can see new stuff online. I am forced to pay for goods with the costs of adverts included, I can't say I do not want to pay for them,
Comments
That actually sounds alright considering.
The exchanging BBC trust for a PSB commission (presumably that will also govern the commercial PSBs too taking that bit away from Ofcom that actually have loads of other stuff to do these days so could loose this bit quite happily) its ok as its basically changing one organization for another.
Extending the time of the BBC's Royal charter is good but lets hope that there is leeway for the lf to go up.
The decriminalisation is alright but I would have it being taken from pay or benefits so people can't skip payments, that's not to say people have to pay it but if you are watching tv then it gets deducted, which would be a pain to change so likely people would only do it if they really don't want it!
The iplayer thing well I would like to know how they plan on regulating that without making the licence mandatory!
At least though the current system of the BBC being funded by the lf stays intact though!
Also, what is it with right-wing nutcases like you who have to HIGHLIGHT or SHOUT every operative or emotive WORD in everything they SAY?
It's NOT like SHOUTING or TYPING IN CAPITALS is PARTICULARLY clever. NOR does it add an OUNCE of CREDIBILITY to YOUR argument. In fact it makes YOU look a BIT "STOOPID"!
Good point - "Localism in action" as the Tories seem to boast about (when it suits), whilst maintaining a degree of control over them
I agree but that's why they do it through the back doors, freeze funding add other costs in, death by a thousand knives.
Fully agree.
So do the commercial broadcasters.
And the BBC does not interrupt a programme twice or three times in a hour, three mins a time, to advertise its own programming either.
So really, that facet to the argument carries little weight.
Agree.
How do you think the existing commercial broadcasters would feel about this, given that they already operate in an incredibly tough marketplace?
Or are you one of those people who think there is a bottomless pit of money to be spent on TV advertising?
it has been mentioned a few times in recent pages regarding the effect the BBC taking adverts would have on other commercial broadcasters, so I'm not going to repeat it.
And your favourite programmes would end up being shorter to the tine of 9 - 12 mins for every hour.
That's why it's such a tough business. Advertisers know very well that many people fast forward through the ads, and are not prepared to pay anything like as much as they would in the days before this happened.
You don't seem to understand this basic point. There is not a bottomless pit of money to spend on TV advertising, and what's there cannot support another major broadcaster like the BBC. And that's before we even start to consider how the BBC would have to become just another commercial broadcaster, which isn't really the reason we have it.
As someone who detests adverts I'm happy to pay £145 or more a year to have programmes that are free of them.
That is exactly the opposite of what should happen. It is perfectly obvious why politicians want those things, but do you all actually want more political control of the BBC?
fair enough, i on the other hand am on the other side as in i dont hate adverts and would rather have an extra £145 in my pocket
I think some MPs huff and puff a lot about the BBC and the licence fee, but the vast majority of MPs know that they try and destroy the BBC at their own peril.
Jeremy H(C)unt/Green or whatever he is calling himself these days, got away with treachery when he forced the licence fee settlement in 2010 with a shotgun to the BBC's head. Although, to be honest, Mark Thompson was a pushover and didn't fight the BBC's corner very hard. Make no mistake the real reasons why Television Centre was sold, why BBC Three is moving online, why BBC Four cannot make any original drama anymore, why the World Service is cutting its language services and why Newsnight took it's eye off the ball 2 years ago is due to cuts as a result of that forced licence fee settlement.
I am more optimistic now than before. There is an irony that the more the BBC is attacked from self interested parties, the more the public wake up to the huge value of the BBC and all that it stands for. There will be a revolt in this country, including by many who write on this forum if Murdoch, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, UKIP, Tory wonks like Philip Davies, Peter Bone and Christopher Cope dare to even attempt to undermine the single most important cultural institution this country has ever known.
I am part of the Save BBC Three campaign. It is huge, there are many thousands of young people who, during the consultation by The BBC Trust, have articulated why the Channel should remain on DTT. One of the biggest ever online petitions is about saving BBC Three. This is about stopping just one small limited evening television service moving online, yet the interest is huge.
Now imagine if the BBC made plans to close BBC Four or slash Radio 4's budget or stop making quality drama on BBC 1 as a result of cuts, or as some would have sell off Radio 1 and Radio 2, privatise BBC 1. There would be significant political unrest (especially if Radio 4 was hit!). Another irony is that the ones who value the BBC the most are those who are most likely to vote Conservative or UKIP. That should focus the mind of any government of a right wing persuasion!
You may be surprised to know but I'm not a raving socialist, but I absolutely detest political ideology that behaves like an accountant, knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. I am confident that the majority of the British public are the antithesis of this and any government that takes on the BBC will take on the people too. I've only ever been on 2 marches in my life and both were for the NHS. I will be the first in the queue to march for a strong, fully funded and independent BBC if necessary and I know a very large number of people who would do the same.
(PS Thanks Ash for your kind words earlier)
Would you though? Sky, increasing subscription charges, a Virgin media, you would be worse off with wise TV, be careful what you wish for, it's not going to be what you will get.
Agree,
And isn't it funny, MPS always attack the BBC just before an election! Funny that! Maybe there very frightened of the BBC telling us the truth, the full truth and not Spin.
Not so much how the existing commercial broadcasters would 'feel' about it....more that if the BBC was allowed to compete for advertising on an equal basis as them, they would be destroyed. ITV would die almost overnight. Channels 4 and 5 wouldn't do much better. Think about it.....advertising meeting for a large brand wanting a big impact....an advert on prime time BBC1 or ITV? There would be no contest. Which channel shall we advertise on during the World Cup? BBC1 of course, ITV barely gets a fraction of viewers if there's a choice. The BBC could then also start aggressive bidding for sports rights with all its new money. It could command huge audiences for Premiership matches, far more than Sky ever has. So, there would be BBC Sport Channels 1-8. What would Sky do then to draw in its audiences to buy ridiculously high priced packages?
People who suggest privatising the BBC, selling off Radio 1 and 2, scrapping the licence fee, forcing the BBC to take advertising (take that BBC you bunch of lefties) are like people who play a game of chess but can't see more than 1 move ahead. It also tells me what kind of people they are and often I find that they are supratentorially challenged and they lack superego development -generalising, of course!
Well it's the facts that if we all pay the price is very very low, 40p per day and people who are on low income, pensioners etc gets entertainment on a fair cheap basis, the " I am all right jack" attitude will in the end cost far far more and give worse TV and force people on low incomes not to have TV.
Now people will not put into pensions unless there forced to do so, which is for their benefit, would people opt out of the NHS if they could?" I am alright my company pays BUPA etc, why should I pay for the NHS ."
The thing is there are a few in this country who want something for nothing, IE the free lunch, there is no such thing as a free lunch!
Forcing people is in fact fairer, it spreads the cost your forced to pay for water, forced to pay for power there is no real choice. Would people by car insurance if they were not forced to do it? A few skip travel insurance as they do not have to pay it as an accident will never happen to them or their family!
A few in the UK have a "Me only culture, " " I do not care for others, " well for 40p a day it's a false saving.
Who do you think pays indirectly for the adverts?
While 'speeding through the ads' is done by some (although you still get a break in programming) what is the long term impact of this on the commercial sector likely to be?
TV licence payers who only watch and listen to the BBC.
Yes "we all" pay for the TV adverts by buying advertised products in shops.
Why do we need adverts anyway?? I can search the internet for anything I need, I can compare them, I can see new stuff online. I am forced to pay for goods with the costs of adverts included, I can't say I do not want to pay for them,