[TheGregmeister]

This article has been published on the BBC News website today . . .

BBC to explore how to reform licence fee, director general says
www.bbc.co.uk 

BBC to explore how to reform licence fee, director general says - BBC News
Tim Davie says it is right to ask questions about the fee but it should be explo…
  Source: www.bbc.co.uk

I've made my feelings about the TV Licence on this forum very clear before now. It's an anachronistic obsolete charge. It shouldn't be reformed. It should be abolished.

I think we need to have an honest conversation about this. I don't want the BBC to go away, but it's funding seriously needs to change.

[Newshound47]

I think the biggest obstacle is radio. Subscription radio doesn’t exist and there is no sign that DAB will be switched off anytime soon.

[cable]

Indeed, it's no longer a monopoly or duopoly and there is plenty of advertiser funded and subscription funded TV channels and radio stations. Perhaps the BBC should be funded in such a way that it produces public service programming that can be sold to the PSB commercial channels rather than try and fund commercialised programming to pad out the schedule.

[Newshound47]

Indeed, it's no longer a monopoly or duopoly and there is plenty of advertiser funded and subscription funded TV channels and radio stations. Perhaps the BBC should be funded in such a way that it produces public service programming that can be sold to the PSB commercial channels rather than try and fund commercialised programming to pad out the schedule.

Advertising is not exactly doing well in terms of media at the moment through.

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

I've made my feelings about the TV Licence on this forum very clear before now. It's an anachronistic obsolete charge. It shouldn't be reformed. It should be abolished.

I think we need to have an honest conversation about this. I don't want the BBC to go away, but it's funding seriously needs to change.

Why bother? we’ve had that conversation millions of times and nobody ever comes up with a solution that would properly fund what you claim you don’t want to go away.

[Keith]

The House of Lords Committee visited this subject back in 2022. lordslibrary.parliament.uk 

Just a moment...
Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
  Source: lordslibrary.parliament.uk

Back then they examined reforming the licence fee as well as alternatives, which appears to be covered in committees.parliament.uk .

Just a moment...
Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
  Source: committees.parliament.uk

Worth noting that a universal household levy is one of the alternatives which they gave a favourable opinion on.

A universal household levy could offer a viable alternative to the licence fee. It would need to be means-tested to make it fairer than the current model. Linking the fee to council tax offers one route to achieving this via an existing system. This could also reduce collection costs.

[Kunst]

Why bother? we’ve had that conversation millions of times and nobody ever comes up with a solution that would properly fund what you claim you don’t want to go away.

You're seriously going to miss an impoverished BBC with less funds

Less funds than even now...

[MajesticBass]

It's a bit of an odd one, as the options are all essentially known once you put the constraints (that I think all the main parties are broadly signed up for) that it should be at roughly the current level (while there may be noise from some backbenchers around abolishing it, I can't see any government really wanting to be labelled as the one who cancels Strictly) and needs to be it's own identifiable charge.

Broadly speaking this leaves only the current system, council tax or some sort of broadband levy, and this along with the pros and cons has been known for a long time.

So I really don't see how another review is going to help here.

[cable]

Advertising is not exactly doing well in terms of media at the moment through.

Exactly, so moving to an advert funded model is not going to work as it would end up distorting the market. Currently the BBC competes with commercial broadcasters by broadcasting populist shows. As for Pay per view, no one will really be interested in paying by the programme. Reducing the number of channels and increasing the quality of output might make a premium subscription system work, similar to how Sky Cinema and HBO works in the US with the content still running without adverts, people would probably be happy paying up to £20/month.

As for digital, for streaming it has iPlayer however, currently the conditional access is that you honestly click the button that says you have a licence fee, its not validated so your bbc.com account is not linked with the TV licensing database, so its actually very easy for evaders to currently watch BBC content. Whatever system is used to fund the BBC in the future will need to tie into how it is funded and then enforced.

For News, It needs to enter into commercial terms with various tech companies to licence its content, as at the moment it's news, very easy for these services to pull in and benefit from the content.

News, Parliament and the kids channels provide PSB, so they should be continued to be funded, the general channels however should be rationalised and refocused to provide better value. iPlayer exclusives could reach native digital audiences who wouldn't touch the linear channels. How about merging iPlayer and sounds into a single BBC app.

Its business future is programming, not the technical side of things (R&D costs), with IP everything is being levelled, operating transmission infrastructure is outdated and archaic. everything is heading to an IP future so a transition has to be made.

[Keith]

So I really don't see how another review is going to help here.

I dare say it ensures that the future of the licence fee and it's replacement isn't discussed until after the next general election. Given current polling I can't imagine that the BBC would want the current government to decide, as knowing they're likely on the way out they could hand the BBC a stinker (as the recent two year freeze arguably was).

I'd agree though that the feasible options seem to be already known.

Advertising is a non-starter. All the BBC's commercial rivals would object to this option, especially commercial TV channels who are already struggling with advertising revenue since streaming platforms started introducing advertising. I imagine the streaming platforms are also able to offer targeted adverts, compared to traditional linear TV at least on Freeview.

Subscription is also likely to be contentious and problematic. The Lords committee have previously stated that it "would generate insufficient income whilst introducing disproportionate barriers to access", and stated that they do not recommend moving to a purely subscription-funded model. I suspect a few of the streaming platforms might also object, as they may feel they'd lose some customers.

With regards to a telecommunications levy it's worth noting that the Lords committee stated it "would offer few advantages over the licence fee, and its potentially negative impact on broadband access would make it less fair".

On a hybrid commercial funding the committee stated:
"We welcome the BBC’s commercial strategy and encourage it to continue to diversify its sources of revenue. But such income is
limited. Without major changes, this will not offset the BBC’s reliance on wider public funding in the near future."

On a part domestic subscription their conclusion was:

A hybrid domestic subscription offers an opportunity for the BBC to maintain a broad range of quality programming without requiring regular rises in the licence fee or alternative method of public funding. It would give audiences choice over whether to pay for the full range of BBC output while ensuring the BBC’s core programming remains universally accessible. But there would be significant commercial risk with no guarantee of success. It may involve trade-offs with universal access, which would have to be viewed as acceptable by audiences.

There are a range of possible versions of such a service, with varying levels of investment and risk. For an expansive version, multi-billion upfront investment would be needed to build a sufficient content library. A less expansive version, experimenting with new payment models and content strategies, would involve less investment and risk, but could provide a basis for possible future expansion.

It's worth noting that at the end of the alternatives section the Lords committee report stated...
"We recommend the BBC explores and publishes costed options for hybrid domestic and international subscription models"
This may also be part of the reason for yesterday's announcement.