cost of tv licence is going up

As to the rest of the thread - it is important to remember that the current licence fee increase is the result of an existing agreement made with government / parliament. It isn't the BBC just deciding to increase it this year because it feels like it. The funding formula for the BBC is a formal agreement, based on inflation, not on the BBC asking for a certain amount of increase each year.

The other issue that people forget is that broadcast inflation - i.e. the increase in costs involved in broadcasting - salaries, equipment purchase costs etc. is usually higher than normal inflation.

If the BBC got a strictly "normal" inflation deal, then they would effectively be facing an income cut in broadcast terms, as they'd have les "real" money to make shows with. You'd get more repeats, cheaper shows etc.

And of course the sub contractors saved money this year by closing the canteen over the Christmas period. So the staff who were working all hours to bring you your favourite programmes had no hot food throughout their 12 hour shift!!!

How can you possibly believe this to be true? Do you really think that freezing salaries of a few directors is going to free up enough cash to not require a licence fee increase? This is absolute twaddle!!

BBC continue their dictatorship....

As noggin has already stated, this rise is just the next in a series of pre- agreed increases - not simply the BBC deciding to put it up.

Keeping the fee rising with inflation (and above while they expand their services - and the decision needs a different thread), if you freeze the fee, they will face two options...

- Freeze salaries - a bad move economically as those talented employees will be able to seek a higher wage elsewhere. Only those who really value the benefit of being a BBC employee (higher management typically) would remain.

- Redundancies - preferable to the above in terms of quality of employees but very unpopular with the majority.

Well obviously it would take more than "freezing salaries of a few directors". It would mean a general strive for greater efficiency. I haven't gone through their accounts with a fine toothcomb but off the top of my head I'd suggest an end to frivolities like using the BBC News copter for aerial shots of ducks on a pond for a 3-minute report, when shots taken on the ground would suffice. I'm sure if they drafted in a professional troubleshooter they could identify thousands of other ways they p*ss money up the wall.



No hot food on tap for a few days over Christmas - well, get the violins out! Most of us have no catering services at work at all for 365 days a year - we have to bring in packed lunches or trek out to a shop at lunchtime. Why do some people think they are special and have a divine right to luxurious perks at work when they're being funded by people on the poverty line who are threatened with jail in order to pay for the gravy train?

It's simple economics - thanks to the unique way it's funded (ie. taxation), the BBC has a monopoly which means there's very little accountability and incentive to deliver value. Simply being told to deliver value by a government that doesn't know the meaning of the word is hardly a surefire way of achieving it. If a private sector company delivered above-inflation price increases year upon year, they'd rapidly lose business to their competitors. But the BBC's attitude is exactly like all the town halls who've doubled council tax in the space of ten years... "We do it because we're special and we can do."

yes

And I wonder how much the BBC wastes on electricity on by leaving unused lights/computers/televisions on around the clock when there's nobody in the office?

Quite a lot I'd imagine.

I just wonder if you pay either Council Tax or the TV Licence.

You're assuming that both the BBC and Councils have free rein over how much they charge. In fact, they are a lot of checks, balances and negotiation with central government.