I’m not sure this vendetta against the #BBC is going to end well. No mention of it in our manifesto (where we actually promised to work with BBC to build new partnerships across globe) so I won’t be supporting it. https://t.co/7zz6GPpM76
I hope the Sunday Times story about the BBC is kite-flying. Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism. “Vote Tory and close Radio 2”. Really?
Commercial Television and Radio would be a lot more worse off without the BBC.
If the BBC had to fund itself via commercial advertising, I'm pretty sure some big national advertisers would go with BBC exclusive slots on TV/Radio simply because there are still more eyes and ears pointed towards BBC services (generally, I know some ITV programmes consistantly outrate the BBC in some timeslots) and if you are are buying slots for an advertisers - average critical mass is exactly where you want to head for.
Whatever your view on the BBC, the quote from a govt source is alarming “we are having a consultation and we will whack it. It has to be a subscription service”. If you are going to “whack it” and “it has to be subscription”, what’s the “consultation”?
A 'subscription service' is easier said than done. They'd either need to encrypt every BBC service and subscribers will have to buy a special receiver or adapt current ones. Think how this will work with radios in cars or older FM/AM sets. AFAIK there's no encryption technology for those.
Or they'd need to replace every TV and radio receiver in the country so it only got BBC programmes if they were paid for.
It's not practical, even taking into account the arguments about public service broadcasting and reduction in income
Of course that might be the point, come up with a model that isn't possible to destroy it
Didn't Greg Dyke ensure in the early days of Freeview that a way of possibly encrypting the BBC in the future was left out of the tech spec to ensure it remained a universal service.
Always in the Sunday Times, always completely inline with Whittingdale and Murdoch's world view. Although I think this time it is Cummings.
If they are really radical enough to want to scrap the Country's most popular radio stations and the local ones when let's be honest there will be no real replacement, then they will have to deal with the consequences.
BM
BM11
.@thesundaytimes reports only Radio3 & Radio 4 will survive under new govt rules. BBC will be forced to sell all other radio stations. Is that the same Radio 4 the government is currently boycotting in the morning?How will scrutiny of politicians work post 2027? Asking for a mate
Always in the Sunday Times, always completely inline with Whittingdale and Murdoch's world view. Although I think this time it is Cummings.
It's getting too common now to be believable - if Cummings / Boris are under scrutiny, deflect to something else. Happened during the election campaign with the BBC and now with Cummings in the spotlight following the reshuffle (which if you've read the articles, you'd see he hates being the centre of attention) something creeps out.
Last edited by peterrocket on 16 February 2020 2:40pm
:-(
A former member
Whilst I don’t agree with the idea of moving to a subscription model, I do think we need to move away from this idea that the current setup is perfect and that changes can’t be considered. Most countries have a form of public broadcaster, but few have a similar model of paying for it.
My own view is that it should be moved into general taxation, with safeguards in place for its independence and funding, and an allowance for a limited amount of advertising. At the moment the fact it is paid for separately breeds resentment. There also needs to be some serious soul-searching about what the BBC should be doing, what can be done on a commercial basis, and how those two things can work together. Why not allow an ad break during Strictly? Why can’t we show World News in the UK? Maybe the answer is we have “BBC” for the PSB requirements, and a secondary brand (a la UKTV) for everything else. Maybe it isn’t. But we need to stop treating things as unthinkable.
The License fee cannot be justified in a market that is increasingly favouring subscription services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, both of which do not require a TV license. There are many people, myself included, who no longer watch any live television. This is only going to increase. Whilst i do not believe it would be to anyones benefit to fillet up the BBC and sell off all the profitable bits i do believe that it needs significant reform to stop the bloat and obvious waste.
In most cases BBC services would be competitive in a commercial marketplace and it is these services that should be hived off to BBC Worldwide and funded through advertising or optional subscription. Whilst advertising would annoy the commercial lot i see it as perfectly reasonable to tell them to get lost especially when their services will now be viewable by potentially more people without the barrier of the license fee. Sky & Virgin could put their prices up.
Yes there are parts of the BBC that are not competitive and would likely be forced to close if they became commercial. However, the BBC and the Government already have (or have had) agreements in place where some services are/were funded through General taxation "Grant-In-Aid" i think is the term used. At one point BBC World Service, BBC Persian TV, BBC Arabic TV were directly government funded and not part of the license fee. So it is entirely possible for the government to fund the continuation of the likes of Radio 3 & 4 if it will prevent their closure due to lack of funding.
The main arguments i see whilst searching the internet seem to stem from the public perception that they own the BBC. You dont see the same vitriol levelled at ITV or other broadcasters as they are commercially funded. Its quite common to see complaints about the likes of Gary Lineker's salary, and yet nobody seems to complain about what Ant & Dec get paid by ITV. I do firmly believe that most of the complaints levelled at the BBC would disappear if the license fee was axed.
As for me, i dont really care what happens. Right now i dont need a license fee as i dont watch anything other than Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube and Twitch. I dont think i'd even care if the BBC was abolished entirely. I appreciate there are people that get a lot of use out of the BBC services, but most of those services are available from other providers.
PS. I dont know whether any of that made sense, but its been a bajillion years since i've felt the need to post here...
The License fee cannot be justified in a market that is increasingly favouring subscription services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, both of which do not require a TV license.
Yes there are parts of the BBC that are not competitive and would likely be forced to close if they became commercial.
Your second paragraph contradicts your first.
Are amazon prime or netflix going to set up a local radio station in my town that covers local news, sport and community events? The commercial station moved to Buckinghamshire then London to cut costs and the company that owns the local newspaper is heavily in debt and could go pop at any second.
The license fee is only a problem because somebody decided it was rather than the other issues facing the country. Yeah you could hide the cost away in general taxation and hope that keeps angry people on social media happy but let's face it, even if the BBC is gone they'll still claim the media in this country is too tory/"leftie" and will never be happy.