Culture Secretary moots a slashing of the licence fee
Hildaonpluto
Posts: 37,697 Forum Member
✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658343/BBC-licence-fee-slashed-Government-review-year-Culture-Secretary-Sajid-Javid-reveals.html
Possibly being overspun by an anti BBC newspaper but it seems yet again the BBC is being put on notice over its future funding just as were in the run up to the general election.
Id like Labour to come out with their thoughts on the future of the BBC so we can see whether or not theres clear blue water between the parties.
Possibly being overspun by an anti BBC newspaper but it seems yet again the BBC is being put on notice over its future funding just as were in the run up to the general election.
Id like Labour to come out with their thoughts on the future of the BBC so we can see whether or not theres clear blue water between the parties.
0
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26730952
wonder if she is aware how popular that could be .............
What election exactly?
BBC1 has a 75% weekly reach according to BARB, by far the highest of any TV channel in the UK, while BBC Radio has over 50% of all radio listening according to RAJAR, Radio 2 has over 15 million listeners, its getting close to the audience Radio 1 had prior to Matthew Bannister's arrival, btw Radio 1 still has 11 million listeners. I still listen to Radio 1 even though I'm well outside its target for the simple reason commercial music radio is God awful boring, repetitive dirge. The only decent stations are the Absolute and Kiss families.
I don't think cutting off the BBC would be as popular as the anti-BBC minority would like to think.
And yet the BBC shrink from being a subscription service at every available opportunity
Its easy to claim you are popular when you know people are taxed to watch you and can't do anything about it. BBC claims of popularity would fall pretty fast IMO if people could opt out of the licence tax.
And before you ask, no I can not prove it but I am prepared to put it to the test. Are you ?
At the same time it's quite right that there should be a debate over future funding of public service broadcasting as new technology is throwing up more and more loopholes which some think it's clever to exploit. It's pretty obvious that after a protracted debate we will continue to have a universally funded public broadcaster, but the TV licence will probably morph into a licence covering any TV/broadband/mobile device - you have any one of these you pay, but you don't have to pay twice. The sooner this happens the better in my view.
I actually got the impression he isn't very comfortable in the job and might not want to stay in it too long but maybe it's too soon to judge.
Complete twaddle.
What talent?
The BBC nowadays is staffed by media degree graduates who think they have a clue what audiences want but do not. they ruin classic programmes either by axing or changing with "fresh new faces" and seem to be unable to understand "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
The only winners of a change of the BBC's funding mechanism, whether advertising and/or subscription will be BSkyB and the Murdoch's.
TV Licence. £100
iPlayer alone £50
TV Licence+iPlayer. £145 (current fee)
The idea that the BBC provides any competition to Sky is laughable.
The only likely change is that (like every other channel), the BBC will be funded by sponsorship and advertising - which is long overdue.
I do hope not. Why would you want to ruin the BBC with sponsorship and advertising? There's enough of that on every other channel.
There is no bottomless pit of advertising money. Put a huge broadcaster like the BBC into the same market as existing commercial broadcasters and quite a number of them will go bust,.
How does getting me to pay £30+ a month because of an newly formed monopoly to watch live TV instead of the £12 a month I pay now benefit me?
There are other options, such as funding from direct taxation or an increase in council tax. Harman has said that she is prepared to look at other options as part of charter review, but advertising and sponsorship isn't being considered. Advertising and sponsorship on the BBC would have a disastrous effect on local TV and commercial radio stations, as well as Channel 4 (and to a lesser extent ITV & Channel 5).
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/04/bbc-licence-fee-harriet-harman-labour
I doubt that very much - although BBC will need to get real and start running things in a viable fashion. People who want Freeview can pay a realistic monthly fee, and PTV along with avertising revenue will fund a scaled down BBC.
And seeing PTV reminds me of that episode of Family Guy, keeping with the theme of Murdoch.
BBC being 'free' to air, as in £145 per year gets you free to air tv is the anchor for tv costs. Once that anchor is removed, prices are free to drift ever upwards as has been seen in all other privatised industries and/or public services being run by private people. Council homes did the same for housing, once they were gone, rents and house buying just escalated. Think cartel, not competition.
Consumer Choice is the trojan horse they use to sell the idea of privatisation of public services but once the privatisation process begins and progresses real choice is seldom anywhere to be seen.
And the frightening thing is on another thread you are extolling your solutions to the world economic problems
Why?
I'm failing to see the link between the system of money we have and public services versus privately controlled public services?
The link is both sets of your observations are nuts IMO.
I gave you the respect of not commenting on your economic views so that others may enjoy them. I have only commented on your TV views because you directly addressed me, if you had not I would not have commented
In other words you believe in a type of creative stasis.
In the words of Charles Allen former CEO of ITV at a time when they were getting hammered on Saturday nights by BBC1 "I don't fear the BBC as they can't take away our advertising revenue".
Put the BBC into the commercial market and I'd bet within a year half the channels on TV, including CH5 and possibly CH4 would have vanished from your screens. How many commercial channels rely on BBC repeats to bring in the viewers, does anyone seriously think the BBC would still sell its repeat rights like it does now?