Wonder what you make of this item suggesting that the BBC could lose its exclusive right to the license fee?
“Ofcom will on Thursday suggest sharing the £3.4 billion-a-year pot with other channels to help them make unprofitable public service programmes such as children’s television, regional news, arts shows and documentaries.”
I don’t think this is good news since it does not address the central wrong of a license tax in the first place. Ofcom seems to think that the more you spread a bad idea around the better it is. Well I don’t think so. Broadcasters should stand or fall on their own financial capabilities and NONE of us should be forced to spend so much as one penny propping any of them up. Ofcom does not offer a solution, it merely proposes deepening the problem.
This isnt all that bad…what it does do is force Al Beeb to actually compete for funding rather than them thinking they have sole access to the money to produce sh1t.
Given hell will freeze over before the tv tax is removed, this is at the very least a step in the right direction (even if it is a direction none of us want to be heading in the first place!).
Mailman
I’m in favour to be honest. Not sure why you would need to keep the pot at £3.4 billion a year, though, if you were only going to fund the stuff that’s unprofitable. Surely once you dropped the talent shows, soaps and the rest it would save some money.
I’ve seen several Labour ministers enthusiastically floating this idea – that instinctively makes me oppose it.
We might end up with simply yet another BBC, easily manipulated by government, and with a staff culture of supping at the public purse with all that entails, e.g. a left of centre attitude to pretty much everything.
I’m for it. By separating funding from production it undermines the case for a monolithic broadcaster living in its own bubble and able to distort the market at will.
I’m for it too. At least we’d see what the commercial companies could produce with their public service cash. They could hardly do worse that the BBC does with it. All the BBC’s output is already supposed to be the high quality stuff that generous, guaranteed funding produces, but what do we get? 99% of it is audience grabbing formulaic rubbish like Eastenders and Casualty, and masturbation jokes from £6 million per year man Mr Ross.
And any loosening of the direct link between the BBC and the licence fee money is a good thing and more likely to end the whole silly system sooner rather than later.
The BBC is determined to fight off any bid to “top slice” the licence fee, saying it would undermine the “unique” relationship it has with its viewers.
Sir Michael Lyons, the chairman of the BBC Trust, said recently that the licence fee was not “a spare pot of cash” to be shared with other broadcasters.
“Let us not forget that the licence fee belongs to licence fee payers,” he said. “The licence fee is not a back-pocket for government, regulators or anyone else.”
Precisely it does belong to the payer.
It should be the prerogative of the payer as to whether they choose to fund the BBC or not.
Anything that undermines the bbc is ok by me – but I agree with DV’s sentiment, I haven’t paid the tv tax for years
ITV, C4 and C5 don’t want PSB funding.
BBC don’t want to share the taxation, because they know how to use-up the taxation.
Quango Ofcom, the brains of a spaner, favor spreading the Telly-Tax so more&more tax is required for PSB use.
Quango Ofcom, growing bigger, funded by media consumers.
i dont buy a tv licence, Beeboid telly tax collectors used to send me threatenig letters, so i wrote back and revoked their implied licence to use my driveway in order to comicate with me
walk up my path without a warrant, i sue for lots and lots
beeboid scumbags
I tripped up over this too, when I saw it in the paper this morning. No. It legitimises the “licence” fee. Although, on the other hand, it undermines “the unique way the BBC is funded” i.e., extortion, in that it looks as though the government wants them all to share this “unique funding”.
Meanwhile, back at crinkly bottom, Noel Edmonds does have a TV license after all. The Western Morning News says ” A spokesman said “T.V. Licensing has checked its records and can confirm that we have a valid current license on record for his address”
But hold on. The plot thickens.
“Mark Borkowski, a spokesman for Edmonds, denied the presenter had a license, saying T.V. Licensing had got its facts wrong”
The license probably belongs to Mr. Blobby.
OFCOM is a Labour invention, filled with extremely well paid government appointees. I simply don’t trust anything that they or Labour proposes. We’ve had over 10 years of Labour politicising all sorts of areas that were once above politics. The government are even paying for prime time programmes telling us what a fantastic job they are doing, e.g. the ITV programme about the police. I haven’t heard any objections from OFCOM.
If the BBC opposes it then I’m tempted to support it, but I don’t trust this government one inch. Of course no claim it’s about improving quality, but then they would hardly be upfront if their aim was to increase political control of broadcasters, would they?
Bodo is right not to trust anything that emanates from Ofcom – a thoroughly useless organisation staffed by placemen out to scalp as much money for the Treasury as they can.
It’s quite simple. If sufficient people want local news, children’s programmes and the rest, they will pay for them. If they don’t, why should they expect them to be paid for by others?
No licence fee. No licence. It’s an anachronism and an outrage.
Bodo
I fear Ofcom is a Tory invention, a lot of us said that if there was to be competition in the UK telecoms industry it was essential that a regulatry body should ensure that BT did not abuse its incumbent position agaonst the tiddlers. It was included in the White Paper of June 1982 proposing privatisation of BT.
But But But – they then appointed a load of wets to run it, mostly without proper training or background, who took an ambivamet view – not a fiercely pro-competition view, that all monopoly is axiomaticall abusive and inefficient. I knew mny the top guys and gals in those years – second-raters from Whitehall, would not have empoyed them to run a chip shop. Nice guys, but flaccid.
The result was that it took years to free up aspets of the BT market dominance (70 or 80% market share can be deemed “monopoly”) for instance on allowing others to use DSL on thir customer lines, or on the transparemcy of BT accounts.
The current Ofcom does not really seem any pore robust. What it needs is a crusader at the top, not a compromiser.
Why give cash to private companies ? Why not reduce their taxation instead ?
There is nothing the BBC does that cannot be or is not already done by the private sector far more cheaply and efficiently. The BBC in this internet age is redundant. Full stop.
BBC 4 is an utter waste of time. It’s head of marketing, James Pestell, claimed it wanted to be “the most intellectually and culturally rewarding channel of television”, with the motto “Everyone needs a place to think”.
So what does it do? Squander its licence fee, chase ratings and compete against private sector channels by broadcasting cheap repeats. Batman anyone?
If I didn’t face such formidable opposition from the rest of the household, I could quite happily ditch the TV and stop subsidizing socialists.
This OFCOM f***-arsing around sharing the pot is an utter waste of time. People just want to see the whole edifice gone.
Capitalism gives people what they want, the socialist BBC presumes to tell people what they need.
Why is it that it always seems to be that public service = left wing.
I’m against it, it just means more government interference in the media and there’s enough of that already as it is.
the BBC does NOT oppose this. They suggested it as far as im aware
“Sue:
Meanwhile, back at crinkly bottom, Noel Edmonds does have a TV license after all. The Western Morning News says ” A spokesman said “T.V. Licensing has checked its records and can confirm that we have a valid current license on record for his address”
Regardless of whether or not Mr Edmonds has a TV license, surely TV licensing should not release this information as this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act?
Mick McDonald | 20.09.08 – 12:13 am |
Sweet. I await the answer with interest.
If this happened it would mean the BBC monopoly is over. Perhaps it’ll mean more balance in the reporting and drama. Who knows? If there’s one thing we should all know by now, it’s that politicians don’t listen to the public – they’ll do whatever is best for their careers.
The BBC will simply look to get money from demanding a separate licence for owning a computer or mobile device that can receive live streaming.
Yes, when the Beeb can no longer justify a telly tax they will introduce a “broadband connection” tax.
rather have the £140 tp spend on my family/car/life than on a tv I hatdly watch.
Besides £140buys a hell of a lot of DVDs – even watching them repeatedly is still more varied than the BBC.