BBC rejects subscription fee calls
The BBC has rejected calls to introduce a voluntary subscription fee for its services.
Responding to a government inquiry into the future of the BBC, it argued the £145.50 licence fee was the “most effective way” to fund the corporation.
It warned a subscription model – where users only pay for the services they want – would exclude many who could not afford it.
It added the licence fee was funding a public service everyone could use.
in its written submission to the committee, the BBC said introducing alternative funding methods would have “significant drawbacks”.
“Subscription would turn the BBC into a commercial operator with an incentive to provide services that maximise revenues and/or profits,” it said.
“The evidence suggests a subscription model would be likely to reduce the payment base, increasing costs for consumers who remain and excluding many in society who could not afford to pay.”
The corporation also dismissed the suggestion of funding by advertising, saying the quality of its programming would suffer.
“If the objective of the BBC were to maximise advertising revenues, the BBC would shape its programming to maximise the benefits to advertisers rather than to audiences,” it said.
It added the current absence of advertising was a “key characteristic [audiences] value about the BBC”.
All very well…except the BBC is a commercial operator…one with a massive advantage over every other…it has a guaranteed income come what may.
The BBC competes hard against other broadcasters and other media operators such as in the magazine market….and providing programme content for sale….it has only just announced it will provide content online for a charge…so no qualms about charging people for what they have already paid for then.
BBC reportedly set to compete with Netflix and iTunes in charging viewers to watch favourite programmes online
It also has more than enough advertising….its own programmes….sometimes masquerading as ‘news’…..the BBC reports something on its news bulletin…and then announces ‘by the way you can see the BBC investigation of this on Panorama or Newsnight’.
Does the BBC want immigrants to have a freebie on them , like it wants immigrants to have freebies on our NHS ?
“The evidence suggests a subscription model would be likely to reduce the payment base, increasing costs for consumers who remain and excluding many in society who could not afford to pay.”
Lets repeat that “…excluding many in society who could not afford to pay.”
And how inclusive is £145 if you are poor you CAN’T afford to pay that sort of money.
The BBC statement defeats its own argument.
“The evidence suggests a subscription model would be likely to reduce the payment base”
What not enough well-to-do Guardian readers to maintain the common purpose?
Perhaps if they expand that potential payment base by expanding the range of views the represent
“What not enough well-to-do Guardian readers to maintain the common purpose?”
Not ven eenough of them to support the Guardian, which is a much cheaper (both senses) operation.
The operative words are, ” . . . evidence suggests . . . ”
Come on, we’ve seen this before ? What evidence ? Were from ? Suggestion is not fact !
What they did get right is the reduction of payments. But, if you get less money then the first thing you must do is trim your wage bill. That’s what most companies do in the real world.
If you wanted to just watch Sky and not the BBC, you would have to pay for both services irrespective. This we all know. So for the BBC to come out with this old-clap-trap is pretty rich.
Going over to subscription is the best thing for those on low incomes because it allows them to choose which provider they wish to watch, without the fear of a tap on the door.
..and since when has it been the BBC’s prerogative to say how it will be funded? Like asking convicted felons how long they want to serve in prison. Daft…
The way this is ‘reported’ without a hint of Mandy Rice Daviesian irony is hilarious.
It advertises its own output all day everyday. It competes aggressively and lies to try to gain further unfair advantage over operations that have to survive by putting their money where their mouth is. A straight subs/poll-tax debate is not the issue: the BBC should be broken up with minimal national public service broadcasting but culling a majority of current output (needs 2 TV and maybe 3 radio stations as PSB). Split production/broadcast operations; end news programmes except straight-forward reporting of the news!
“It warned a subscription model – where users only pay for the services they want – would exclude many who could not afford it.”
The licence fee excludes people who cannot afford it from TV of any kind. What a pile of crap.
The BBC’s rejection is hardly surprising.
There have been very few examples in history whereby someone in a position of power has relinquished such power and certainty. The Licence fee model is the goose that keeps laying golden eggs for a corporation such as the BBC. There is no real accountability and any system bias cannot be countered. The model ensures that no such remedies can be found.
Do we know who, if anyone, is making a robust argument for abolition of the tv licence? Will the government inquiry take any notice of anyone other than the bbc?
John Redwood, sort of. Delingpole, sort of.
Some beautiful BBC logic there. The sooner we get rid of this disgusting Left-wing mafia tax, the sooner this country can get back on track. Without the BBC, the Left’s potential to cause huge damage to the fabric of this country would be severely curtailed, if not crippled completely. Alongside the extremist Left-wing, pro-Muslim and anti-British Channel 4, the BBC has inflicted terrible damage on England’s cultural mindset. If I had my way, I’d storm the building, arrest the leaders, and shut down operations.
I admire your restraint. After storming Broadcasting House I would propose its immediate conversion into hostels for the homeless and food banks for the needy. All other BBC property to be similarly converted. Sell off all the equipment owned by the BBC or destroy it if no buyer came forward. Put the all the senior managers on trial for misuse of public money ( treason would be an option but it seems out of keeping with the British way of doing things, which has survived the BBC’s attempts to do away with it so far). Of course they would have to fund their own legal teams! And do whatever else was necessary to ensure that the BBC, or anything like it , ever rose from the ashes.
Well, if poor people can’t afford to watch BBC on-subscription, they will just have to watch something else instead. Plenty of commercial stations on Freeview. The subtext here is that BBC programs are so worthy that poor people will suffer some awful misfortune if they can’t get unrestricted access to them. Seriously? What programs are the BBC thinking of here? Apart from the news, which anyone can get from anywhere, this is what BBC1 was putting out today:
The Cat in the Hat
Race to Witch Mountain
Bargain Hunt
The Shaggy Dog
Escape to the Country
Flog It!
Pointless Celebrities
Celebrity Mastermind
A Question of Sport
EastEnders
Miranda
Silent Witness
The Graham Norton Show
EastEnders Omnibus
There is nothing here that is intellectually enriching in any way, and nothing here that can’t be done as well as, or better than this by commercial television. The BBC monopoly has gone flabby, and is serving up a diet of soaps, chat shows, panel games, reality shows, third-rate comedy, and quizzes. No one should be forced to pay for this tripe, but if they want to, that is a different matter.
“The BBC monopoly has gone flabby . . . ”
The moment that you said that, I had a ‘flashback’ to the 70’s. Although TV as I remember it was a lot more interesting, the state of the state owned industries like Leyland truly reflected the times. industry had grown dependent, lazy and ‘flabby’ on taxpayer monies.
BBC would actually benefit from good old market forces. If it cannot afford the Johnathan Ross’s of this world then, it should seek out new and cheaper talent. Cut its wage bill and learn to live within its means.
Yes, in the 1970s, the BBC had thriving competition in the face of ITV to keep it on its toes.
These days, the main competition for the BBC seems to be American DVD box sets!
Why do you think the BBC lobbied last time the Charter was redone to have public service broadcasting redefined as getting good ratings? When John Redwood recently asked them what they thought about good public service broadcasting, they pointed to ratings and commercial revenue from their properties as evidence. I think he was shocked.
If the BBC reject the idea of a subscription, so will Cameron and the Coalition.
Exactly my thoughts, if Maggie and her true conservative market forces government wouldn’t stop the BBC licence, what chance is there of wishy washy Dave taking a hard line?
They can’t see the hypocracy can they? I have come across enough leftwing people in my time when challenged on their double standards it is “different” as they spout off. With their goons forcing people to pay the tax we need rid of the leftie bbc but it won’t ever happen
If the BBC, as they persist on boasting, produce programmes of such superior quality to those produced by their rivals then they should have no problem attracting sufficient subscribers to provide them with sufficient, if not an excess, of funding.
Surely the BBC can’t be so fearful that their products are of such poor quality that people will not be willing to subscribe to them unless they are forced to?
Seems that when it comes to a suggestion that the BBC put their boastful claims about the brilliance and superiority of their output to the test they go into a complete panic and cry like frightened babies.
I’ve just received my second letter from the BBC (pretending tv licensing is a seperate entity), asking me to re confirm I no longer need a licence. Cheek! Has the BBC improved it’s programmes in the last two years? No! Adopted political balance? No! So why would I want to subscribe to them again? Naturally it tells me an inspector may call, without mentioning he has no more legal right than a double glazing salesman!
When the newspapers ‘rejected’ legislation they were rightly criticised for having the arrogance to think they could pick and choose which laws they abide by. The BBC was one of those that jumped on their back for this. So why now does the BBC think it can decide how it’s funded if the public are complaining about it and the government is also skeptical? The hypocrisy is amazing.
Not to mention the reasoning is absolutely ridiculous. It’s like when BBC defenders say “well it’s cheaper than Sky.” We’re not forced to pay for Sky. That’s the smoking gun in all of this. The BBC is a tax-funded propaganda machine. It needs to either be scrapped, privatised, or forced into true and overseen impartiality.
Spotted on todays Times 4/Jan featured that the big international Internet based companies (you know Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple and probably Google included) only paid 54 million between them on sales of UK 15 Billion pounds. Now we know the BBC does not like paying tax at source either, particularly if it is taxpayers money amounting to just 4.8 Billion pounds, there is just not enough to go around ‘to keep them focussed’ as they say (says Mark Thompson former DG) of a pay award to Mark Byford. Just one of 25 million he personally signed off before he too became a tax exile in New York. I expect he may have to pay tax there on his USA earnings as do the internet companies who are so good at avoiding tax here in the UK.
Just about to make a post on BBC Privatisation as a strategy that they (BBC) may well have thought of already. What the BBC actually ‘owns’ now has changed radically. They think they can become a private Media empire supported only by EU and Left wing dictatorships money (a World Service). It may just work if they sack half the staff, perhaps they can exist without the UK License fee. I explore that thought in a long post here very shortly: http://biasedbbc.tv/quotes-of-shame/
Main points:
(1) The BBC transmitters were sold to USA in 1997. Now part of Merlin Comms, that became Media Management Centre and is now part of Babcock International. No BBC transmitters are owned by the BBC!
(2) The BBC privately owns TVL and set cost agenda. They pay Capita to get the License fee money as private debt collectors and maintain and update BBC database. 140,000 people prosecuted last year alone.
(3) All BBC magazines are private equoty funded (usually by the BBC directors or others within the BBC directive). Lucractive Private limited companies.
(4) The BBC pay a private ‘management and delivery’ group 150 million to serve the BBC fat Quango in ‘key facilities’.
(5) Two thirds of all BBC programming is now BBC repeats. the BBC makes money by selling old programs to ‘Freeview’ under License. They buy programmes exactly as do Sky and BT Vision.
(6) The BBC privately benefits from” The Freedom of Information Act 2000 ensures that all BBC financial ‘facts and figures’ are kept secret “for the purposes of journalism”.
(7) THE BBC relocation to Salford Quay Manchester means that the BBC is renting it’s luxury HQ premises from a private sector developer called PEELS (75%) and the remainder (25%) from Saudi Arabia (which are both UK tax exempt).
My brother suggested I would possibly like this blog.
He was entirely right. This put up actually made my day. You cann’t consider just how a lot time I had spent for this information! let me tell you your post is really very interesting…
Thanks!