TV Licensing Reform

I'm not sure you're entirely accurate there -- and besides, the amount of promotion for ITV.com / SkyNews.com / Skysports.com is no more than promotion for BBC services IMHO.

I agree.

I pay Virgin *almost* as much per year for a landline that I never ever use. Couldn't even tell you the number without looking it up on my mobile. I often wonder why I'm forced to pay for it, as I only want to use the television and broadband service. Having it connected is pointless.

The opposite is true with the BBC. There really *is* a point to every household paying the fee, even if some only watch a handful of gems each year.

Like the World Service and some other public broadcasters like the ABC it could be done with a government grant. It would have to be protected and keep it's independence but there are ways around that

There could be a levy on something like pay TV subscription or some other related payment (like the current land line broadband tax proposal)

There are other ways though



No, because that would remove access to the BBC from all but the richest of the population. The beauty of the system is that it's free at the point of delivery. You'd have a whole tranch of people who don't have access to PSB

The License works, it does enable those who don't have a TV to avoid paying. Best tried and tested approach.

It works at the moment, kind of. But the traditional model of having a TV set which you watch a limited number of linear channels on, is disappearing fast. How the license fee will fair when 'broadcasting' is laregly dead remains to be seen

How about they have a government pot, and hand out licenses on some sort of broadcasting authority, and hand out grants to the licensees, based on how much PSB and News and Sport, and varied programming it provides, then it would have a varied service, with adverts allowed to be show on the 1st License, but only at peak times (e.g prime time and breakfast and news times) this would allow the public broadcaster to make money, and to carry on providing good programs *xx-cough-itv-cough-xx* and have say 6 of these stations (and possibly one local service) on a government run digital service with a good fee (e.g £75 p/a) which would be divided up by a quota on the quality of the programs, and every five years the financial and programming status of the channel, and would be re-licensed as provided by a majority of the scrutiny panel think is best to continue the service.

Simple Enough

I think we're a long way from seeing the disappearance of linear broadcasting as the traditional method of reception for most people.

I accept that there are an increasing number who view the programmes through a PVR, but that is simply delayed broadcast TV. It still attracts the TVL fee as the law stands.

If more people end up viewing principally the likes of BBC iPlayer/ITV Player/4OD etc, then the law and technology will have to be changed to ensure that they are also captured by the system.

That's a different debate of course. Linear TV will always exist in some form because all programmes will need to be 'premiered' at some point, and there will always be a section of people who will want to see it as soon as it is available. Then there's live sports, live chat, live music...

Will it? - 'This week's Doctor Who will be available on the iPlayer from 7pm on Saturday' that would be the premier of the programme, no need for BBC1!



Live events do not make linear channels though, not in the sense that we know them now anyway. The BBC website has live programmes on it, but they aren't linear channels - a stream appears for half an hour at the end of a Grand Prix and then disappears again.

News is possibly the last genre that would go completely non-linear but as things like Sky news Active and BBCi have shown us... they don't have to be

It could be argued that BBC News faces similar pressure from elsewhere. I refuse to believe the BBC News is 100% impartial, particularly with respect to the manner and tone in which each of the stories is delivered.

I believe for instance that the BBC News has a strong anti-Afghanistan / Iraq war agenda and a pro-climate change theory agenda (and although it's now called 'climate change', let's not forget that man-made global warming was taught as fact on the school syllabus for well over a decade, but that's another matter).



I don't know anything about that, so can't comment.



They'd survive on a voluntary basis, with perhaps the option for listeners to donate money if they wanted to.



And how are commercial broadcasters meant to compete with that?



Don't really see the point in half time analysis, personally.



Should that really be the BBC's job?



It's only subsidised because they can make a TV series out of it every year.



Ok.



A commercial but not-for-profit broadcaster could easily put aside money to cater for minority groups as well.



The BBC fails at entertainment. Ok there's Dragons' Den, Top Gear and HIGNFY, but that's about it unless you count popularity contests such as Strictly Come Dancing and the annual ALW rubbish, which pass the time of day but aren't particularly entertaining. I haven't found any of their comedy programmes funny since The Smoking Room and The Catherine Tate Show.

Also, I'm not suggesting we 'scrap' the BBC, it's just that I don't think the BBC is really all that.



Snobbery, pure and simple. ITV provides excellent family entertainment and their daytime programming is much better (Jeremy Kyle excepted) than the same old antiques / auction / property programmes served up ad nauseum by the BBC.

I was talking about commercial pressures. Journalism like 'Watchdog' wouldn't appear on a commercial network. You only have to watch a bit of Fox News to understand how impartial the BBC is, even if it's regrettably not 100% all of the time.



I can bet you they wouldn't. It's not like running an independent charity shop. Running a radio station to BBC quality is expensive.



They can't. Which is exactly the point, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.



Thousands of people do. 1.4million viewers of formula 1 on the BBC used the red button service to listen to 'child friendly' commentary by CBBC presenters. Football fans dislike the coverage on ITV because there's barely any chat or analysis; half time is one long ad break.



It is the BBC's job; to inform and educate, as well as entertain. The commercial networks boughed out of schools programming, because it wasn't profitable for them!



Which brings the delight of the Proms into the homes of millions of people who didn't have time or chance to go to one of the venues.



There is no spare cash lying around to 'put aside'. Even ITV and Channel 4 are losing money. What's keeping them open is ratings and populist programming. ITV want to slash their PSB obligations because they're such a burden. Nobody but the BBC is interested in making programmes for minorities.

The BBC is a 'not for profit' broadcaster, but it would not survive commercially.



...and Mock The Week, Gavin and Stacey, Children In Need, Masterchef, Friday night with Jonathan Ross, Jools Holland, How do you solve a problem like Maria, Songs of Praise, Mastermind - all great programmes which appeal to different people.

You've named three shows there which by singling them out I assume you think they're good. Your license fee will pay for a fraction of one episode of one of those programmes - including the cost of delivery to your house whether DTT, satellite, cable or online. If you've enjoyed these programmes, you've benefitted from the BBC.



Sorry, do you mean the type of auction programme that David Dickinson currently presents on ITV, and property shows like 60 minute makeover on ITV?

ITV makes great popular family entertainment. But that's pretty much all it does these days, which is why the BBC is important.

Snobbery my arse, I have seen both outputs of recent & although their much a muchness, I personally would watch the BBC's constant antiques/auction/property programmes, than a sneering, judgemental t**t shouting at chavs, or four old witches screeching away at the camera for 30-60 minutes.

Yes, ITV does still sometimes have some decent evening Drama's but most of it is complete rubbish. Plus they're now being, more or less, given permission to drop regional news programming, that's along with "proper" documentaries, children's programming, religious programming & also local programmes, which used to deal with those minorty programmes (LWT used to have the London Minorities Unit (LMU).

I remember what ITV was like, the days of Thames/LWT in London, giving an excellent service that rivalled the BBC. I look at ITV now & pity it because, at present, it's an abysmal waste of time.