BBC and The TV Licence

I fully agree about the licence fee (even though I don't live in your country and enjoy the full BBC service regardless *sits smug* ) - it is excellent value for money, on the host of levels as outlined above.
However I disagree Gavin that End-The-TV-Licence-Now doesn't have a right of opinion - regardless of whether or not he/she is in a position to pay it, they can still have an opinion on it.
Indeed not being in a postion to have to pay it would if anything make you more favourable towards it!


Not to divert the discussion too much, but a hot topic in television circles in Ireland at the minute relates to the BBC licence fee and our proposed DTT system, due to start trials in a few months time.
It's widely percieved that it won't get off the ground (or not as well as it could) without the BBC, ITV and Ch4 on the platform too. (currently 77% of Irish households receive the BBC) thanks to ravenous Sky taking advantage of farcial State inaction on DTT.

How would you lot feel about paying for a BBC service that Irish viewers could see free of charge across the country? Or would you deem us to be a minor over-spill? (4 million in Republic)
As it is, something like 15% of us just pick the BBC up from over the border with NI or from over the Irish Sea. All others who have the BBC would subscribe either to basic cable, Sky or MMDS - so presumably some of this money at least gets back to the BBC somehow.

But with Irish DTT would the BBC only come on board if some sort of remuneration was made like an annual Government grant or other form of fee, or would they view it as an advantage to have greater coverage? (for whatever reason??).

Privitise BBC!!!!

This would mean about 16 minutes worth of commercials in 60 minute programmes (like ITV), 8 minutes of commercial in 30 minute programmes (like ITV), dumbing down - just like ITV

fall foul to investors, just like could happen with ITV and its shareholders. BBC could actually end up in the hands of an American conglomerate such as CBS, or even FOX or Disney!!!!!!!!

documentaries, current affairs and news will fall foul - just look at the state of these on both ITV and Five!!!! (C4 is a government owned station - just like BBC)

Licence Fee is about best and cheapest way of funding the BBC! You need the licence no matter which channel you view! You get impartial (or so-caled impartial but still more imprtial than Yankee TV) news and current affairs - decent 60 minute dramas (and not 44 minutes), wide choice of programming instead of just soaps and reality (like ITV)

BBC Shops are part of BBC Worldwide (or Enterprise) which is NOT funded by the Licence Fee. BBC World and BBC Prime are not funded by the Licence Fee and are not allowed to carry BBC News24. BBC America is a franchise - owned by BBC Worldwise and The Discovery Network - again not funded by the Licence Fee.

BBC gains it money primarliy through the licence fee but also through joint ventures with BBC Worldwide(Enterprise) such as those already mentioned and with the UKTV channels (part owned by Flextech!)

Can you imagine what would happen if the BBC was privitised - all these ventures would disappear - radio stations would be sold off - would be the final deathnail in regional television. Then how would you be complaining -Why can't the BBC produce shows they way they used to?

One more thing - I am originally from BBC NorthWest region (Bolton, nr Manchester) but now live in Den Haag (The Netherlands) where I can get BBC via Sky Satellite and BBC1/2 are part of the basic terrestrial channels along with NED1/2/3 RTL4/5/7 Veronica

My concern with the license fee is that as a public service broadcaster, the BBC competes a hell of a lot with commercial operators. In the strictest economic sense of what a public service broadcaster should be, it should exist to provide the sorts of services that commercial operators don't. I don't think anyone could say with a straight face that that's all the BBC does. News 24, to take perhaps the strongest example that springs to mind, was set up in direct competition to Sky News - an existing commercial operation. How is that in any way fair? It acts as a disincentive to the private sector if the public sector is always going to jump in and set up a taxpayer-funded rival.

The problem with a taxpayer funded operation competing with a commercial operation is that there's an inherently unfair playing field. Commercial operators are reliant on viewers - they need viewers, because without them, they don't get advertising revenue. In the case of the BBC though, taxpayers are already footing the bill. It doesn't matter how many viewers they get, because they've already got their money. The BBC actively seeks to win viewers - it takes viewers away from commercial operations that need them to ensure their financial viability. That is, to my mind, anti-competitive behaviour.

Now, that's not say all the BBC's operations are inappropriate. Services like BBC4 seem to be pretty unique from what I can tell in terms of the British TV landscape. But when the BBC creates shows on BBC1 that are specifically designed to win ratings points, then that's not fair, because it stands to reason that if they do rate, that advertisers would be prepared to pay for them. Taxpayers are being made to pay for programmes that on other channels, advertisers would foot the bill for. So to that end, I personally support commercialisation or privatisation of some of the BBC's operations - but I wouldn't privatise the whole corporation, because obviously some of the services they provide aren't commercially viable, and in terms of public service broadcasting, there is obviously a place for them.

If it wasn't for the BBC many programme genres would not have been successful and it is actually the commercial companies that copy the BBC.

Prime examples in recent years have been the make-over programmes, docudrama's, light documentaries.

News24 may be a direct competitor for SkyNews, but it is also different from skynews - more indepth more impartial and more information direct, whilst sky goes for headline grabbing, rolling news and using its "star" presenters

I agree with you to a limited extent. A couple of years ago it was quite dire, with the BBC coming up with things like Fame Academy in an attempt to compete with ITV. The good thing about it was those programmes often didn't get the ratings the BBC were banking on. They are being more creative now, for instance on early Saturday nights it used to be entertainment shows one after the other, in compeitition with the same on ITV, but last year the BBC took something of a risk with the new Doctor Who. Although it doesn't seem so now because the show has been a massive success, the BBC were quite unsure whether it would work, to the extent that if it were a commercial operation, it probably wouldn't have taken the risk. That is a situation where the BBC were offering something different, and earned the big ratings it got.

On News 24, I think the BBC were right to set it up; the world's leading news broadcaster without a domestic news channel in a 24-hour news environment would be ridiculous. Before News 24 launched in 1997, Sky News was the sole domestic 24-hour news channel, and therefore had a monopoly. Had ITN had a news channel then, in competition with Sky, then the case for News 24 obviously wouldn't have been compelling, but they didn't. The BBC had a duty to provide an alterntative source for 24-hour news, and until recently, Sky News was ahead in the ratings, but is now usually either level-pegging or slightly ahead.

On the BBC and its commercial activities, I have always thought, for instance, that the BBC should not be publishing their own magazines, with some exceptions like the RadioTimes, education related publications, and those with subjects commercial organizations can't or won't do. Instead, they should licence out the brand and rights to their shows in relation to print media to commercial organisations. But on some other decisions the BBC has took, I think they were wrong. I think that selling BBC Broadcast (now Red Bee Media) was a bad decision; after all, the BBC is the British Broadcasting Corporation, yet the BBC in most cases no longer broadcast their own channels. They will probably claim they have a watertight contract with Red Bee that cannot be exploited, but what happens if Red Bee finds a way to demand more for their services, and the BBC are not willing to accept those demands? If Red Bee start pulling the plug on BBC broadcasts because of a situation like that, the BBC doesn't have any suitable facilities of its own to do the job on a permanent basis any more. So in some cases, privatising or involving the private sector by licensing rights etc. is a good decision, but in other cases its the wrong decision.

Another aspect where the BBC as it currently exists is a force of good for UK broadcasting is that it is guaranteed to produce, in most cases, good quality, British made programming. Thanks to the Communications Act 2003, non-EU companies are allowed to own ITV franchises, so a Time Warner or Disney owned ITV is a real possiblity. five is now completely owned by RTL. BSkyB is effectively controlled by News Corp. So it is only the state-owned BBC and the state-owned Channel 4 that are guaranteed to commission and produce home grown programming, and not be flooded with cheap American and foreign programming.

The TV license is the most outdated rubbish ever. I can't believe a ditractorship like it can still exist in this modern day 'capalist' global enconmy!!!!!

Doubt you should be calling the shots on if the TV license should exist as your spelling implies you're a good few years away yet from paying for one.

Well - any business, including a commercial TV network is going to take risks of one sort or another. Would ITV revive one of their old shows for a new modern take? It's hard to say. I don't think saying that the BBC takes greater risks is necessarily justification for all that it does. The risk should only relate to whether or not it's feasible for the private sector to provide it. If the private sector can't or won't do it, then that's what you've got a public service broadcaster for.


I disagree entirely. The idea that a public sector operation should be directly set up to compete against a commercial operation is simply bad practice in my view. While you argue that it was to provide competition for Sky News, I would contend the practice is anti-competitive. ITN did set up a news channel, which has now recently closed because of their limited market penetration. If BBC News 24 weren't there, could we have imagined the same thing happening? I don't think so. The interference in the market place by the public sector made it unfeasible for a commercial operation to continue to provide their service. It drove away competition rather than encouraged it.

The fact that BBC News 24 is now the ratings leader suggests to me very strongly that it is precisely the sort of BBC service that could be privatised or commercialised. It's important to create a level playing field to encourage new initiatives from the private sector, ultimately benefitting consumers. That's simply something that the British TV media landscape doesn't have now - it is a climate that is heavily biased towards the BBC, and that ultimately hurts other actual or potential players out of the private sector.


Where the private sector can do the job, it makes good sense to me that they be the ones to do it. What business does government have trying to manipulate the marketplace by providing their own offerings? It discourages investment by the private sector - it "crowds out" the market. I think if more parts of the BBC were sold and spun off - even if they maintain the BBC brand, which is of course a well recognised and respected brand across Britain and around the world - then that would be a beneficial outcome. If private operators can and are willing to do the job, then it makes good sense for them to run the show.


Well, I don't foresee British TV networks ever becoming relays of the American networks. British viewers are looking for different things - it's why networks produce so much local content, and viewers actually watch it (which, let me tell you, is a marked contrast to here in Australia where due to local content quotas, a lot of rubbish gets produced that nobody watches). Even if your networks were all bought up entirely by Americans, you'd still be seeing British content produced, because that's something British viewers demand at a very high level. You also have the resources and talent to supply the local content.

I should point out, as a model for public service broadcasting, I think Channel 4 is a great operation.

Must say with regard to radio - I certainly found at Uni I used the BBC far more when I didn't pay the licence fee - listening to BBC Radio and using the website.


What I don't agree with is that everytime the BBC makes a saving the cuts are spent internally - I think some of the savings should be passed on in the form of a licence fee cut (or freeze at least!).

I also think the BBC Radio network could be privatised and ran on a similar line to C4.

But most of BBC's services are unique - and not highly listened to. While Radio 1,2 and probably 4 and 5 would survive, I doubt any of the others would. Is that what you want?

Well it wouldn't bother me. If 4 or the 5 main national services could survive, I doubt they'd be much problem. We've got Classic FM so no reason why Radio 3 shouldn't be able to survive too.