ES
I was thinking about licensing after my license dropped through the letterbox last week; not so much how monies are divided (I'm not convinced there should be any significant change there), but with how it could be paid.
I'd be quite happy if the license was changed from per household to per adult. Obviously for a reduced fee - say, £71.25 each. Not only would that be a fairer way to pay (so people living on their own end up paying the same amount that somebody living in a house of 5 adults pays), but I'm fairly sure it would effectively raise the license fee income without costing most families any extra (considering most families will generally have 2 adults and possibly some children, the total license cost will be no more than it currently is).
It would also mean that I would be able to log in to the BBC website and use iPlayer even though one of my internet connections runs via Germany, as I would have a unique license id.
Also, when your kids go off to university, they wouldn't have to deal with getting licenses and being refunded for time not spent in university properties - their license travels with them.
Naturally, it would also be a system where an element of discounting per person would be possible.
The downside of it would, of course, be policing... that's not something I've managed to resolve yet, but in some ways that won't be a massive loss on the current situation!
Ramble done.
I'd be quite happy if the license was changed from per household to per adult. Obviously for a reduced fee - say, £71.25 each. Not only would that be a fairer way to pay (so people living on their own end up paying the same amount that somebody living in a house of 5 adults pays), but I'm fairly sure it would effectively raise the license fee income without costing most families any extra (considering most families will generally have 2 adults and possibly some children, the total license cost will be no more than it currently is).
It would also mean that I would be able to log in to the BBC website and use iPlayer even though one of my internet connections runs via Germany, as I would have a unique license id.
Also, when your kids go off to university, they wouldn't have to deal with getting licenses and being refunded for time not spent in university properties - their license travels with them.
Naturally, it would also be a system where an element of discounting per person would be possible.
The downside of it would, of course, be policing... that's not something I've managed to resolve yet, but in some ways that won't be a massive loss on the current situation!
Ramble done.
DV
If I gave my true opinion there I'd be lynched.
I now believe the Licence Fee should be raised to enable the BBC to compete effectively with BSkyB.
Is this Digital Spy now? 
If I gave my true opinion there I'd be lynched.
I now believe the Licence Fee should be raised to enable the BBC to compete effectively with BSkyB.
MI
You can't do that - TV viewing is not an exact science - in a household of 5 adults not all of them could be watching the TV at the same time. Therefore at best a one-person household has 500% TV access than a five-person household. My experience of living in student houses and the like where there are 3,4 or 5 people in a household means that not all will want to watch the same programme. Do you see what I mean?
Incidentally I find it incredible that the anti-license folk fail to see that if TV funding is left to subscription and advertising alone, we wouldn't have the frankly necessary sanctuary of advert-free TV and could end up paying higher rates than the TV license to providers like Sky and Virgin just to be able to watch TV. Without the license fee there is a real danger that FTA / FTV television could not viably exist. I wouldn't want the American model (agressive advertising, product placement and 20 minutes of commercials per hour) over here no matter what.
For the money, I don't think 8+1 TV channels, 10 national radio stations, several hours of local news, local radio, a superb website and numerous community initiatives (such as RaW, which I am heavily involved with) and the rest is bad value for money.
I'd be quite happy if the license was changed from per household to per adult. Obviously for a reduced fee - say, £71.25 each. Not only would that be a fairer way to pay (so people living on their own end up paying the same amount that somebody living in a house of 5 adults pays),
You can't do that - TV viewing is not an exact science - in a household of 5 adults not all of them could be watching the TV at the same time. Therefore at best a one-person household has 500% TV access than a five-person household. My experience of living in student houses and the like where there are 3,4 or 5 people in a household means that not all will want to watch the same programme. Do you see what I mean?
Incidentally I find it incredible that the anti-license folk fail to see that if TV funding is left to subscription and advertising alone, we wouldn't have the frankly necessary sanctuary of advert-free TV and could end up paying higher rates than the TV license to providers like Sky and Virgin just to be able to watch TV. Without the license fee there is a real danger that FTA / FTV television could not viably exist. I wouldn't want the American model (agressive advertising, product placement and 20 minutes of commercials per hour) over here no matter what.
For the money, I don't think 8+1 TV channels, 10 national radio stations, several hours of local news, local radio, a superb website and numerous community initiatives (such as RaW, which I am heavily involved with) and the rest is bad value for money.
CH
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I've decided it's time the license was scrapped. Not because I mind paying it, but because I'm just not comfortable with state-run broadcasting. There's nothing the BBC couldn't do that it does now if they were to become a commercial organisation. The only difference is they'd be free of state interference, have more freedom to do what they want and carry advertising, which let's be honest wouldn't be such a big deal now.
There's another aspect to it as well, which is that I think snobbery is endemic in the BBC because they have an unfair advantage. So take the license fee away and let them compete directly with other broadcasters. They'd soon change their attitude then.
There's another aspect to it as well, which is that I think snobbery is endemic in the BBC because they have an unfair advantage. So take the license fee away and let them compete directly with other broadcasters. They'd soon change their attitude then.
DE
In what way is the BBC state run do you think? It might be funded by a nationally sourced mandatory fee (mandatory if you have a television that is) but it always asserts its independence from the Government.
Look at what's happened to ITV though. It used to offer almost everything the BBC offered - religion, arts, concerts, telethons, regional news and documentaries, features, game shows, natural history, schools programmes, current affairs, hard-hitting documentaries, science strands, childrens programmes. Their advertising model has to all intents and purposes, completely collapsed. What's left? Talent Shows, Celebrity versions of classic gameshows, 'talk' shows and soaps.
There's no freedom at all in having to make programmes that attract advertising or sponsorship in the first place.
The BBC is a cosy ship, there's no denying it. Being able to cross-promote websites, radio stations and other services is something that annoys the competitors and quite rightly. Using the airtime between programmes to promote other services rather than trail programmes is bordering on advertising and anyone who remembers blatant ads for Radio Times and Fast Forward magazines might remember that they were banned for being too much like adverts. I feel the junction airtime is going that way once again. Hardly any trails are for programmes these days.
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I've decidd it's time the license was scrapped. Not because I mind paying it, but because I'm just not comfortable with state-run broadcasting.
In what way is the BBC state run do you think? It might be funded by a nationally sourced mandatory fee (mandatory if you have a television that is) but it always asserts its independence from the Government.
There's nothing the BBC couldn't do that it does now if they were to become a commercial organisation.
Look at what's happened to ITV though. It used to offer almost everything the BBC offered - religion, arts, concerts, telethons, regional news and documentaries, features, game shows, natural history, schools programmes, current affairs, hard-hitting documentaries, science strands, childrens programmes. Their advertising model has to all intents and purposes, completely collapsed. What's left? Talent Shows, Celebrity versions of classic gameshows, 'talk' shows and soaps.
The only difference is they'd be free of state interference, have more freedom to do what they want and carry advertising, which let's be honest wouldn't be such a big deal now.
There's no freedom at all in having to make programmes that attract advertising or sponsorship in the first place.
There's another aspect to it as well, which is that I think snobbery is endemic in the BBC because they have an unfair advantage. So take the license fee away and let them compete directly with other broadcasters. They'd soon change their attitude then.
The BBC is a cosy ship, there's no denying it. Being able to cross-promote websites, radio stations and other services is something that annoys the competitors and quite rightly. Using the airtime between programmes to promote other services rather than trail programmes is bordering on advertising and anyone who remembers blatant ads for Radio Times and Fast Forward magazines might remember that they were banned for being too much like adverts. I feel the junction airtime is going that way once again. Hardly any trails are for programmes these days.
IS
I think that the license as a form of collecting the funding won't be able to continue for much longer, but another way must be found of funding
The BBC is not state run
There's nothing the BBC couldn't do that it does now if they were to become a commercial organisation.
There's lots it couldn't do, everything would have to make a profit. The likes of Radio 3 and Radio 4 would change totally if they existed at all afterwards
The only difference is they'd be free of state interference, have more freedom to do what they want and carry advertising, which let's be honest wouldn't be such a big deal now.
Carrying adverts would not allow it freedom, in the same way that commercial TV is constrained by sponsors and advertisers. It would lose a lot of creative freedom. There's no 'state interference' at the moment
And of course commercial TV and radio don't want the BBC to carry adverts - they are struggling enough their share of the dwindling broadcast advertising cake without the beeb coming in a stealing a huge chunk of it
There's another aspect to it as well, which is that I think snobbery is endemic in the BBC because they have an unfair advantage. So take the license fee away and let them compete directly with other broadcasters. They'd soon change their attitude then.
But then there'd be no point in having a BBC at all, the reason for its being is to provide a service without having to compete directly (although, sadly, it doesn't always stick to that). Without some form of commercial free broadcasting we'll end up with a TV landscape of commercial pap and foreign imports. There's a reason why James Murdoch has been so critical about the BBC recently and there's a good reason why he's wrong - imagine if we just had Sky?
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I've decided it's time the license was scrapped. Not because I mind paying it, but because I'm just not comfortable with state-run broadcasting.
I think that the license as a form of collecting the funding won't be able to continue for much longer, but another way must be found of funding
The BBC is not state run
Quote:
There's nothing the BBC couldn't do that it does now if they were to become a commercial organisation.
There's lots it couldn't do, everything would have to make a profit. The likes of Radio 3 and Radio 4 would change totally if they existed at all afterwards
Quote:
The only difference is they'd be free of state interference, have more freedom to do what they want and carry advertising, which let's be honest wouldn't be such a big deal now.
Carrying adverts would not allow it freedom, in the same way that commercial TV is constrained by sponsors and advertisers. It would lose a lot of creative freedom. There's no 'state interference' at the moment
And of course commercial TV and radio don't want the BBC to carry adverts - they are struggling enough their share of the dwindling broadcast advertising cake without the beeb coming in a stealing a huge chunk of it
Quote:
There's another aspect to it as well, which is that I think snobbery is endemic in the BBC because they have an unfair advantage. So take the license fee away and let them compete directly with other broadcasters. They'd soon change their attitude then.
But then there'd be no point in having a BBC at all, the reason for its being is to provide a service without having to compete directly (although, sadly, it doesn't always stick to that). Without some form of commercial free broadcasting we'll end up with a TV landscape of commercial pap and foreign imports. There's a reason why James Murdoch has been so critical about the BBC recently and there's a good reason why he's wrong - imagine if we just had Sky?
JO
There's another aspect to it as well, which is that I think snobbery is endemic in the BBC because they have an unfair advantage. So take the license fee away and let them compete directly with other broadcasters. They'd soon change their attitude then.
Chie, this is the last thing most commercial broadcasters would want. I agree the license fee needs retinking as it's a very outdated concept that doesn't make sense in this day and age. But we need a strong BBC
There's another aspect to it as well, which is that I think snobbery is endemic in the BBC because they have an unfair advantage. So take the license fee away and let them compete directly with other broadcasters. They'd soon change their attitude then.
Chie, this is the last thing most commercial broadcasters would want. I agree the license fee needs retinking as it's a very outdated concept that doesn't make sense in this day and age. But we need a strong BBC
ES
I do see what you mean and you have given the response I expected. I have a license to drive a car. My wife also has a license, but we only have one car. Only one of us can drive the car at a time, but we both need a license. Ok, weak analogy in many ways, but to be honest so was your argument.
I was in Uni 10 years ago and even then there was more than 1 device capable of receiving Television. Two of us had tv cards in our PCs, there was a tv in the lounge and only 3 of us in the house. We also had a VHS recorder. That is more than enough capacity for us all to watch what we want. Even then, the argument of not being able watch what you want is very poor - you don't get a rebate when you have to go to work or are invited to a wedding.
If there were any changes to the way licensing was paid, the vast majority would have some kind of issue with it. That doesn't suggest it'd be the incorrect way to collect monies, as all opinions would be based on our current system... which itself has inadequacies and as such is an imperfect frame of reference.
You can't do that - TV viewing is not an exact science - in a household of 5 adults not all of them could be watching the TV at the same time. Therefore at best a one-person household has 500% TV access than a five-person household. My experience of living in student houses and the like where there are 3,4 or 5 people in a household means that not all will want to watch the same programme. Do you see what I mean?
I do see what you mean and you have given the response I expected. I have a license to drive a car. My wife also has a license, but we only have one car. Only one of us can drive the car at a time, but we both need a license. Ok, weak analogy in many ways, but to be honest so was your argument.
I was in Uni 10 years ago and even then there was more than 1 device capable of receiving Television. Two of us had tv cards in our PCs, there was a tv in the lounge and only 3 of us in the house. We also had a VHS recorder. That is more than enough capacity for us all to watch what we want. Even then, the argument of not being able watch what you want is very poor - you don't get a rebate when you have to go to work or are invited to a wedding.
If there were any changes to the way licensing was paid, the vast majority would have some kind of issue with it. That doesn't suggest it'd be the incorrect way to collect monies, as all opinions would be based on our current system... which itself has inadequacies and as such is an imperfect frame of reference.
GS
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Gosh is it TV Licence debate time already?
It goes Christmas, Cadbury's Crème Eggs, Licence, Christmas, Cadbury's Crème Eggs, Licence...
Making the BBC commercial would be a disaster. There's clearly not enough money left in TV advertising to support the existing commercial broadcasters. How the heck would the BBC maintain its second-to-none news service - never mind anything else.
I know some people would prefer an opt-out of paying for the Beeb, but the nation would be worse off without it - and its only possible to keep it with the universal Licence fee.
Since when was the BBC "State run"?
It goes Christmas, Cadbury's Crème Eggs, Licence, Christmas, Cadbury's Crème Eggs, Licence...
Making the BBC commercial would be a disaster. There's clearly not enough money left in TV advertising to support the existing commercial broadcasters. How the heck would the BBC maintain its second-to-none news service - never mind anything else.
I know some people would prefer an opt-out of paying for the Beeb, but the nation would be worse off without it - and its only possible to keep it with the universal Licence fee.
Since when was the BBC "State run"?
CH
I can't think of any other way the BBC could be funded though.
Subscription?
What about people who don't want to watch the BBC or use their other services?
Greg Dyke seems to think it more or less is, and he should know.
Chie, this is the last thing most commercial broadcasters would want. I agree the license fee needs retinking as it's a very outdated concept that doesn't make sense in this day and age. But we need a strong BBC
I can't think of any other way the BBC could be funded though.
Subscription?
I know some people would prefer an opt-out of paying for the Beeb, but the nation would be worse off without it - and its only possible to keep it with the universal Licence fee.
What about people who don't want to watch the BBC or use their other services?
Since when was the BBC "State run"?
Greg Dyke seems to think it more or less is, and he should know.
Last edited by Chie on 21 September 2009 12:18pm - 2 times in total