BBC and The TV Licence

Who's to say that, should the government decide that the BBC should be funded through a subscription that the government wouldn't still continue to charge a TV License which would just go straight into the government coffers. I can see the reasoning, "we need to pay the people who administer the licensing of the BBC and other TV companies" or, "we need to pay for the newly expanded Offcom".

Then the government would probably decide that they could get double the revenue if they charged per TV set so, drop the fee to £40 per TV and they'd probably get the same money!

Don't forget, the Irish Government charged a TV License before RTE began broadcasting, basically a license to watch BBC programming you were watching illegally!

The BBC produces some great stuff, any change would probably cost us more in some way or form! Let's not change it!

The point that End-The-TV-Licence-Now, can't understand is that the BBC being funded as they are helps all other commercial organisations to exist.

If they were funded by advertising the income for all other channels from adverts would drop by around 1/3, if not more. Could they cope with such a drop in incomes? - No - closing swathes of channels and cuts to programming budgets. Another point here made previously is that if you don't have a television you pay for other channels simply by purchasing branded products - is that fair?

It isn't possible to fund via subcription (still a great move with Freeview Mr Dyke). With either advertising and subscription many types of programming would stop being made, and the schedules would be filled with audience grabbing trash. They would be less innovative with the introduction of technology etc.

One possible route to take, considering the positive externalities that the BBC bring to the media sector, and not just television to fund via general taxation simply by putting 1/2 pence on income tax, or whatever equivalent level. This would bypass the regressive complaints as it currently stands - however there would be concerns about the government cutting funding (although maybe no more than now, with the DCMS having to agree to licence increases?).

What about the less popular shows? It would be hard to get a sponser for some of the less popular shows. There are still people who watch these shows. Just because there are less of these shows, shouldn't mean that their shows are dumbed down, because it is hard to get sponsership for them.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but with our licence fee don't the BBC actually pay SKY for the EPG's???? Therefore no matter whether you have SKY or not you are still funding the Murdoch empire.

Also, indirectly through UKTV (BBC Worldwide/Flextech), the BBC, again, helps to fund SKY buy renting the channel capacity on the satellite. This does not happen with the BBC channels as these are on a free satellite in the same orbital position as the SKY/Astra2 satellites. Again a proportion of the licence fee is used!

Agreed that no-one HAS to subscribe, but when the facts are staring you in the face that no-matter what, we DO actually help with the profits for SKY.

So please can you please expand your argument as to why the SKY fee should not be put towards a referendum along with the BBC licence - if it was ever to occur. (which of course never will happen!!!)

This is all rubbish. Sky is a commercially available product and each individual has a choice over whether to subscribe or not.

The money that the BBC pay to Sky (and we'll ignore BBC Worldwide as they act as any other commercial group), to Astra, to Red Bee or any other company is no reason to investigate how the other company charges. amosc - you are talking rubbish.

Feel free to complain to the Competition Commission that Sky are abusing their monopoly position but they are currently free to act as they wish.

okay excuse my complete ignorance for the fact that BBC spends licence money on Sky, but can you please expand on to say why it is complete rubbish

The BBC pay Sky money for a commercial service, to be listed on the EPG. A service that costs Sky money to provide, which the BBC value. because it increases their reach and allows them to offer a service to millions of customers. This interaction is no different from any broadcaster paying for a service. and no different from the BBC paying any other organisation for a service.

Why should any organisation that the BBC purchase a service on be placed under scrutiny?

To be honest any dealings with BBC should be put under close scrutiny. Just like a govt body have put BBC Worldwide (excluding UKTV here but includes all the magazines and other commecial interests) under scrutiny, UKTV is always under scrutiny as well as BBC 3 and 4. BBC World and BBC Prime, again are under scrutiny as well as the relationship it holds with its partners with Freeview (again Sky has an interest here!!!!!!). The biggest bug-bear with the government, at the moment are the BBC digital radio stations, such as 1xtra, 5 Sport Live,6, and 7 _ too much money being spent on them with very little return/listeners

Anything that the BBC does has to be under scrutiny because it does involve the publics money - remember the BBC is just another government quango just like Channel 4 albeit with self-autonomy. Also there has to be a goverment approved governor on the board of governors who actually reports back to the government!

This is not rubbish just fact that can be picked up in any decent BBC publication!!!!!


Don't get me wrong on this I want the BBC to keep its funding from the licence fee, its just that I feel that every penny should be accounted for and used properly, just like in any business. I, also, subscribe to SKY therefore can see both points of view. I am, however, very biaised towards the BBC becuase it is the greatest public broadcaster in the world and it should stay that way.

The point I am trying to raise here is what's the difference in paying a Licence fee to paying a subscription? At least with the licence fee we know that most of it is going to be spent on decent public broadcasting, whilst with the SKY subscription you are just paying to watch advertisments, sport and film with very little decent in between!

If the BBC was part of the SKY subscription pacakge would we have the same arguments? In general I would assume we would, therefore why shouldn't the SKY subscription be part of a referendum with the licence fee - if it was to ever happen - and I hope it doesn't

If the BBC was part of a Sky package we wouldn't be having the same argument as it would be funded differently.

If you must, examine every penny that the BBC spend; the money they pay for carriage will be among the easiest to justify.

Why should the income of a private company be placed under scrutiny, it is personal choice whether to subscribe or not. Just as it is personal choice to purchase any commercial product.

BBC is NOT a private company - it is a government quango and it should be scrutinised on how it spends every penny. The same goes for Channel4 - another government quango! Just like any other government department/quango

Don't 'BBC Worldwide' get their money from 'BBC' profits, not from the license fee?

That is not my point. Why should Sky a private company, have a line of income investigated (subscription) just because another line of income ( EPG fees) includes some money the BBC.

Rob: BBC Worldwide is the commercial arm of the BBC, their profits go back into the BBC.