So...the TV Licence

[antijoke]

Sparked by the recent topic on this, and the fantastic threads that the TV licence produces here, I have read that the Royal Charter for the TV Licence expires on 31st December 2016, with the fee fixed at £145.50 (for colour) until March 2017.

There is a briefing paper for UK Parliament which sets out the options for for future BBC funding which are:

1) Continuance of the current system of TV licensing;
2) Funding the BBC from general taxation;
3) Use of advertising revenue;
4) Switch to a subscription system.

So OcUK, which would you be most happy with?

Me myself, I'm torn between a subscription based system or continuation of the current method, as the current method is almost identical to a sub anyway.

Maybe a mod would add a poll.

 

[Liquid_Entity]

Adverts, cos then I won't watch TV live

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

1.

I think the BBC needs reform of it's structure and improvements in the way it works (certainly in it's online output and their fear of editorial automation because the DM will jump on every error) but I think it's funding model keeps it as independent as it can be.

Also the BBC isn't just TV, I should imagine that removing the licence will have a massive impact on all the radio stations apart from R1 and R2.

 

[MrMoonX]

Adverts! Watch everything recorded anyway so whatever bbc

 

[krooton]

Adverts means "hour" shows become 40 minutes, and "30 min" shows become 20

 

[a1ex2001]

as is, removing the license fee would ruin the best radio stations in the country, one of the best sites on the internet and a globally envied TV service.

Has anyone ever actually tried watching TV somewhere like America?

 

[Liquid_Entity]

But adverts I can skip when I record it or download it and have none.

 

[Glaucus]

Hard one. The news is good, but it's not as good or unbiased as I feel it should be for publicly founded service. Especially technology articles, or perhaps it's just I am more equipped to spot the blatnent errors in technology stories and that all the stories are actually wrong. I'm all for simplification fo tax so we can get rid of pen pushers, if they can improve the quality (why not hire technical partners to check stories before publishing) then I would be up for publicly funding from their pot, rather than tv license. If they aren't then make it private and let them choose how to do it.

It does need reform, we are moving to Internet based, I don't expect this to happen in any great numbers for ages, but they need to start planning for it. Several people on here no longer pay tv license or watch live tv, instead using netflix/nowtv/lovefilm and OD services which aren't live, so don't require tv license. When my sky contract runs out, I think I'll be following them, yes there is stuff on tv I would like to watch, but a loot can be had from OD services or wait ~12 months and get them on netflix etc, or the money you save rent from iTunes/lovefilm etc.

 

[mattyfez]

Funding the BBC from general taxation would be impossible as it would mean any company can dip into the public purse if they want some money.

 

[Glaucus]

Funding the BBC from general taxation would be impossible as it would mean any company can dip into the public purse if they want some money.

What are you talking about. What a load of rubbish.

 

[ThundyCat]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Choice 1 for me.

 

[Glaucus]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Choice 1 for me.

Why not publicly fund though?
Why have a massive department which costs money to send out letters/license etc. why not just simplify it and take it out the big black pot.
I see no reason why it would stay as it is, it's just a waste of money distributing and enforcing what is a tax anyway. It's just ineffecient.

 

[mattyfez]

What are you talking about. What a load of rubbish.

You could argue that a multitude of companies provide services that are consumed on a large scale and are beneficial to society, well beneficial is a matter of opinion.

What qualifies the BBC for special treatment?

 

[elmarko]

I don't watch TV so it doesn't really impact on me - but I would miss the news website.

Funded under general taxation would be better I'd say, as it would be less of a financial strain on the lowest earners/poorest, it's also significantly easier to organise/administer than the current system.

 

[Glaucus]

You could argue that a multitude of companies provide services that are consumed on a large scale and are beneficial to society, well beneficial is a matter of opinion.

What qualifies the BBC for special treatment?

What has that got to do with your original comment.

For me it's anything taht is essential and does not cope well in a private competitive market.
Things like utilities, trains/train tracks etc.

Private does not do well at producing impartial news, but then BBC should be doing a far better job than they are doing ATM.

 

[doofer]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Choice 1 for me.

It is broken, On Demand and the Internet are smashing it to bits. More and more people are cottoning on to the fact you don't need a TV Licence and can watch the things you want to watch whenever you like.

The BBC, ancient dinosaur that they are completely dropped the ball where the Internet and ODTV is concerned, the only way they have out of the current decline is to become Subscription based and find a way of charging for On Demand.

 

[Edrof]

I don't mind paying a fee, but I do think that the BBC waste a Hell of a lot of it.

 

[mattyfez]

What has that got to do with your original comment.

For me it's anything taht is essential and does not cope well in a private competitive market.
Things like utilities, trains/train tracks etc.

Well my business does not cope well in a private competitive market either, so I want loadsa public money to keep me going too...

 

[deuse]

3)Use of advertising revenue

This the only place I know that forces a person who buys a TV to get a BBC(only) license.

 

[ThundyCat]

It is broken, On Demand and the Internet are smashing it to bits.

Very valid point.