The BBC under threat from the government

Just the idea of PRS doing that horrifies me, I can't think of many worse organisations on the planet at actually collecting the right amount from the right people after applying the right rules.

We need to take a pause in the speculation here and face the facts - if people think Boris Johnson and his government are going to suddenly change how the BBC is run overnight, then they are living in a fantasy world.

The current charter agreement will continue until December 31st 2027 - and so we have the BBC and the licence fee in place until then.

There will always be consultations on the future of the BBC and there is a mid-point review of the financial situation in 2022 undertaken by the government and the BBC.

No decision on the future (post 2028) of the BBC will ever be made before at least 2025 where we may have a new government in place by then.

So until then, let us enjoy what we enjoy of the BBC and stop worrying - we have seen these veiled threats before. Boris Johnson himself even admitted a few weeks ago the BBC will not be under massive government pressure.

All of the above speculation is down to a so called insider at No. 10 and probably the rantings of Dominic Cummings, who will be ignored by Boris over this, as I am sure Boris is not impressed with his handling of the cabinet reshuffling last week.

It is attitudes like that which really do put the BBC at risk. People need to heed the warnings early rather than just believe everything will be alright, and be aware of exactly what is going on in British politics at the moment.

I'm not sure how to phrase this question so here goes. What could replace the BBC?

I don't think the BBC will ever be replaced. Just how it works will.

Well that leads to my second question. How will its workings change?

Worth noting Sky have put their prices up by an average of £3 a month today. The licence fee is going up £3 a year.

You choose to pay for Sky though. A key difference.

And if we're being really picky, content wise a Sky subscription gets you a lot more than just what the licence fee pays for.

Definitely if you count the adverts.

A question though about whether you choose to pay for broadband or it is now a basic necessity, which pretty much regardless of the supplier is dearer than the licence fee, usually with virtually no content.

Sorry if this is a daft question but this got me thinking. Say the BBC did have to operate on the basis of an optional subscription. How would that be achieved? For instance, if you subscribe to Sky, Virgin etc. you have to have a separate receiver that decrypts the pay channels. However, the BBC is available at the moment by just plugging in an aerial. If BBC channels became pay TV channels, how would that be managed? Would you have to have a separate receiver just for the BBC? If that's the case, I'm sure it would go down like a lead balloon with many people. Or is there some way that people could still view the BBC on existing equipment?