The BBC - what's left to cut? - Printable Version
+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Industry News, Technology and Facilities (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: The BBC - what's left to cut? (/showthread.php?tid=627)
+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Industry News, Technology and Facilities (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: The BBC - what's left to cut? (/showthread.php?tid=627)
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Brekkie - 14-12-2023
I don't agree with linking it to council tax as its not a local issue and councils are already under huge pressure as it is, often thrown under the bus by the national government making them responsible for funding things that were directly funded previously.
Paying it through an electric bill would cover everyone who needs to pay it, but perhaps makes discounting it for the most vulnerable difficult. A £15 monthly levy there would barely be noticed at the moment though, unlike if it were added to your broadband bill.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Keith - 14-12-2023
(13-12-2023, 08:57 PM)Larry the Loafer Wrote: I can't remember where I read it but I saw a suggestion a while back that there should be an industry tax for other broadcasters/streamers and production companies. Essentially, if you're providing "competition" for the BBC, you contribute to it in return. I don't hear anyone else ever suggest the idea, unless there's a gaping flaw in the idea that I'm overlooking?I can't imagine streaming services being too happy at being essentially asked to pay for a rival. Also should all streaming services pay the same amount or should the bigger services pay more?
Ultimately any cost applied to streaming services would be passed on to the users. With some people having more than one streaming subscription this could become more costly to households, than simply paying the existing TV licence.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Brekkie - 14-12-2023
Could be spun as you provide public service TV or you contribute to funding it. The problem is it would have to be a hefty surcharge to replace the licence fee.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Stuart - 15-12-2023
(14-12-2023, 09:40 AM)Brekkie Wrote: Paying it through an electric bill would cover everyone who needs to pay it, but perhaps makes discounting it for the most vulnerable difficult. A £15 monthly levy there would barely be noticed at the moment though, unlike if it were added to your broadband bill.You can't add a charge to a completely unconnected service. It's just not the answer. Ability to pay is irrelevant, as the service is the same for everyone. You either use an optional service or you don't. You can't suddenly say it's no longer optional.
Tesco can't charge me for my groceries on the basis that I use Sainsbury's. If people choose alternatives, then that is their choice. You can't just say "I'll charge you anyway for the BBC".
It simply wouldn't get anywhere as legislation. There needs to be a better solution to the funding problem, but I don't know what that might be.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - interestednovice - 15-12-2023
I’m not trying to argue with you here, but the idea it wouldn’t get anywhere as legislation is probably not true.
There is a strong cross-part consensus that continuing to fund the BBC is worthwhile. If some kind of report concludes that adding it on to another (perhaps unavoidable) bill is the best way forward, I imagine MPs and the Lords would push it through; regardless if it’s “right” that they do.
I understand what your point is, and I see the potential unfair you mention, but I don’t imagine that will realistically be a blocker. The most vocal MPs that would possibly be against it would actually be those who don’t agree with the BBC’s funding model at all and would prefer to frustrate a LF settlement as a way to force the BBC into a subscription model and deprive it of funding. Given that’s a small minority of MPs, any vote would still pass unless the details of the proposal were extremely unpalatable.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Stuart - 15-12-2023
(15-12-2023, 03:13 AM)interestednovice Wrote: I’m not trying to argue with you here, but the idea it wouldn’t get anywhere as legislation is probably not true.Imposing something that is currently a matter of choice is never a good idea for legislation.
There is a strong cross-part consensus that continuing to fund the BBC is worthwhile. If some kind of report concludes that adding it on to another (perhaps unavoidable) bill is the best way forward, I imagine MPs and the Lords would push it through; regardless if it’s “right” that they do.
I understand what your point is, and I see the potential unfair you mention, but I don’t imagine that will realistically be a blocker. The most vocal MPs that would possibly be against it would actually be those who don’t agree with the BBC’s funding model at all and would prefer to frustrate a LF settlement as a way to force the BBC into a subscription model and deprive it of funding. Given that’s a small minority of MPs, any vote would still pass unless the details of the proposal were extremely unpalatable.
You may as well impose Vehicle Licence Duty on people without cars or forcing everyone to buy a lottery ticket each week. It would be laughed out of the Supreme Court.
I wouldn't want to argue with you either, I just think imposing something on everyone is not the answer for something that isn't provided by the state.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - interestednovice - 15-12-2023
I agree with you, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t or wouldn’t happen.
If the rules of the TVL were legally altered via Parliament, it would be a legal (if not maybe morally sound) thing to do.
The trouble is, the more you think of an alternative then the more the existing funding model seems appealing - we may continue with the status quo just for that reason in the end!
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Former Member 237 - 15-12-2023
I think it’s the case that if the BBC ever went private, BBC news would be split off and remain public. The cost of BBC news is relatively low in comparison. Therefore it makes sense that news should be funded from a general existing tax stream and the rest of the BBC should be funded by subscription. World service gets money from the government, it can certainly pay for news. The rest I think you’d struggle to justify unless it’s an optional subscription.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - gottago - 15-12-2023
(15-12-2023, 02:42 AM)Stuart Wrote: Tesco can't charge me for my groceries on the basis that I use Sainsbury's. If people choose alternatives, then that is their choice. You can't just say "I'll charge you anyway for the BBC".But what you're describing is exactly what currently happens with live TV and the license fee. If you watch 100% commercial channels but not the BBC you're still having to pay a license fee that will go to the BBC in its entirety.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - interestednovice - 16-12-2023
True, there are always going to be a small number of people “caught in the net” of the criteria by accident unless you make all BBC services straight subscription - then it’s clear; pay to use it and don’t get access at all if you don’t pay. The idea of LF evasion is then no longer a problem (assuming you would implement some anti subscription-sharing software as Netflix and others have done).
However, why I and many others are uncomfortable with that is that it places our arguably “national broadcaster” behind a paywall in such a way that not everyone would have access to it any more. Many would end up choosing to not pay, and therefore not use the BBC. That would be a great shame.