You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
UK households warned they face losing 10 BBC channels 'from January 8'
BBC licence fee will be axed and replaced by government grant and subscription, John Whittingdale predicts
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/bbc-licence-fee-will-be-axed-and-replaced-by-government-grant-and-subscription-john-whittingdale-predicts/ar-AASnyoD?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/bbc-licence-fee-will-be-axed-and-replaced-by-government-grant-and-subscription-john-whittingdale-predicts/ar-AASnyoD?ocid=msedgntp
Comments
Benjamin Cohen
@benjamincohen
I love how @NadineDorries justifies privatising Channel 4 by claiming that Channel 5 was privatised 3 to 5 years ago. Channel 5 launched in 1997 as a private business as a result of a franchise auction but I guess you couldn’t expect the Culture Secretary to know this 🤷♀️
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bbc-may-start-using-netflix-subscription-model-as-tv-licence-faces-axe/ar-AAXb8kb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=677f09b5b05a4e16a46a3596139adbb4
The issue is we should not be forced to pay for a service we do not use in order to use another service that we do. You may feel that the BBC is value for money good for you more power to you etc, then feel free to pay for it.
However if I do not, (which I do not) then why should I have to pay for it in order to use another service? I do not believe any media should be government or state owned or state sponsored.
I believe every media company should be privately owned or privatized. Then it should be up to the individual to decide if they think that service is value for money or not.
The licence is required to watch live tv programmes, not just BBC programmes.
The current arrangements will be in place until the end of 2027, when the current charter ends.
The BBC get the majority of the money raised from the licence, over 90%.
They also generate about 25% of their income from commercial activities.
While the government could still insist on the purchase of a TV licence, and not use the proceeds to fund the BBC, I have not heard any suggestion of this.
Although I wouldnt be surprised.
Hopefully this bunch will be long gone by the end of 2027.
By law, each household in the UK has to pay the licence fee (with some exemptions) if they:
watch or record programmes as they're being shown on any TV channel
watch or stream programmes live on any online TV service - for instance, All 4, YouTube, or Amazon Prime Video
download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer.
The rules apply to any device on which a programme is viewed, including a TV, desktop or laptop computer, mobile phone, tablet or set-top box.
So, for example, someone watching a live football match on a non-BBC channel via a laptop, would still need to pay.
What could replace the licence fee?
A tax on broadband connections of around £138 a year, which could be paid for by consumers or by internet service providers, could replace the BBC's current level of funding, according to Ampere, a media analytics firm. But if internet service providers passed the cost on to consumers, it could be harder for deprived households to access the internet.
A government grant - in Sweden, Croatia and Finland, public service broadcasters are paid for by a tax on income. This could cost taxpayers around £116 each a year. However, being funded directly by the government could give politicians more influence over the corporation's coverage and undermine the BBC's impartiality.
Advertising - The UK is one of only a handful of countries where licence fees are not also supported by advertising (others include Denmark and Norway). However, TV advertising revenues have been in decline for several years now.
A subscription service - It's been suggested that the BBC follow the example of Netflix and change to a subscription service. However, it's estimated that to provide its current services, the BBC would have to sign up approximately 24 million users, each paying £13 per month. Also, it's not clear how BBC One and BBC Two could be put behind a pay wall, or how the BBC would limit access its radio stations to paying subscribers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51376255
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/new-tv-tax-to-replace-bbc-licence-fee-is-likely-to-cost-some-viewers-more/ar-AAYbKK5?bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a434e20af39d40e78e40e566f2cb4c62
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/new-tv-tax-replace-bbc-licence-fee-viewers-more-1673445
You will hear the regular mantra from the BBC's detractors about repeats. When the figures just do not bear this out.
The first point to make is that different standards are used for the 5 traditional channels to every other channel. The first 5 have to mark every time 1 of their programmes is a Repeat with an (R). And not mark new programmes. Every other Channel keeps Repeats silent, and gets a "New" whenever a programme is not a repeat. Which results in a very misleading impression.
Let's take Today's TV as an example. I'm using the period 09:00-24:00. I am disregarding News and Films. And using the main Freeview and Satellite channels listed for today in last Saturday's Mail.
BBC1/2/ITV/4/5. 38 new programmes. 30 repeats.
Main Freeview channels (not including Above's sister channels). 10 new programmes. 155 repeats.
Satellite and Cable Channels. 11 new programmes. 235 repeats.
More new programmes on the 5 main channels than the 30 main satellite/freeview channels combined.
It is not only the case that the BBC wothout a licence may cost viewers more. There are also likely to be a lot less new programmes to watch.
Not all of them will be good news.
Although this will be less important to most people, than it would have been in the early days, when there was a choice of 3 channels.
I would imagine that the programmes they produce for smaller audiences would be discontinued.
I assume their radio operation would have to introduce advertising as a means of funding it.
I would be happy to pay a subscription to access BBC TV.
Although I am not sure how many subscriptions they could rely on, particularly during a cost of living crisis.
I could see many people choosing to save the money from their licence fee payments, and not subscribe.
It seems clear that the government wishes to end funding the BBC from the licence fee, it doesnt seem clear whether or not they intend to end the obligation to buy a TV licence.
So I suppose we could end up paying a subscription to the BBC, while still paying for a TV licence.
Although at present this would cause massive outrage.
If the BBC has to survive on subscriptions, then I suppose the service we could expect would be directly related to the number of subscriptions they were able to generate.
A subscription service - It's been suggested that the BBC follow the example of Netflix and change to a subscription service. However, it's estimated that to provide its current services, the BBC would have to sign up approximately 24 million users, each paying £13 per month. Also, it's not clear how BBC One and BBC Two could be put behind a pay wall, or how the BBC would limit access its radio stations to paying subscribers.
At present, people pay for the Licence by "household"-not "user". There are only 27.8 million "households" in the UK. Paying between £13-14 per month. Per household. Not each.
The average size of a "household" in the UK is 2.4. So-instead of households paying £13-14 per month, the average household will be paying over £30 per month. For a Government-run service. Rather than an independent one.
Before factoring in the cost of change.
While it is possible to determine who lives at a particular address, it would be impossible to pin down who is watching TV, and in particular, which channels.
A number of pitfalls have been exposed with the Netflix model.
The subscription is only £5 or £6 per month.
Yet they allow access to friends or family members at a completely different address.
This is stupid.
Surely it would be more sensible to allow subscribers access on say 2 devices for the regular subscription, and for those that wish to use additional devices, charge an additional subscription for every 2 additional devices, at the same address.
10 Million People Watch Netflix Without Paying
All that anecdotal password sharing we've been hearing about is more than just a few media savvy friends passing around their logins: One analyst estimates that something like 10 million people watch Netflix Instant, gratis.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/10-million-people-watch-netflix-without-paying/316059/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/tv-licence-could-be-linked-to-council-tax-in-radical-shake-up-new-plans-mooted/ar-AAYH5FD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cfd6f4f00afc42f4b6e1aba6a6b46077
@HAYSIE
You look well for your age in that picture.
For years there have been questions about why the broadcaster supplies content which helps subscription services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video draw viewers from the BBC.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10971631/BBC-wants-block-Netflix-buying-shows-five-years-tackle-threat-streaming-giants.html
The BBC is splashing out on big pay rises for its top stars - despite the corporation claiming it needs to cut costs. Six of its top ten highest-earning stars saw their wages rise year-on-year, the broadcaster's annual report revealed. But despite this, director-general Tim Davie claimed the BBC was 'showing incredible restraint' in the 'talent' pay market. About half of the organisation's 74 top on-screen performers were given a pay rise last year - including Naga Munchetty with a hike of more than £100,000.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11007711/BBCs-gravy-train-rolls-Bumper-pay-rises-stars-despite-cost-cut-claims.html
So-for example-choose to say 6 of 10 highest paid received a pay rise. Rather than say the total pay of the Top 10 actually reduced. Highlight the biggest increase, ignore the biggest decrease.
Then there is the fascinating bit whereby it is only the "on-air talent" that gets this sort of treatment. Whereas the people at the BBC who run it, who are often appointed by the Government, are not included. No prizes for guessing that the Director-General of the BBC gets a rather nicer pay rise. Who recently claimed "all options are on the table"-while ignoring the fact that his pay is clearly not on that table.
Finally, these figures are misleading. It does not include all shows where a separate limited company has been set up to make, or receive, payments. Example of the former? Strictly. Of the latter? Graham Norton received roughly double Gary Lineker-but you don't get to see that, because it was paid to his limited company.
The same people that would be moaning about the Gary Lineker salary, would probably be screaming at the BBC, if he left and went to work elsewhere, over threats to reduce his salary.
If this list is published in order to satisfy a public interest in the accountability of the BBC, I am sure that the general public will be equally interested in the salaries of the senior management being published.
I am a fan of the BBC, although I do think that it has been mismanaged in some areas on occasion.
The article also blames the BBC for the over 75s issue, when I thought this was down to the government.
Negotiating salaries will always be difficult, as there will always be a fine line between saving a bit of money, and losing talent to your competitors.