• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

BBC License Fee - Gone - 2027


IMHO, there should be 1 BBC TV channel (programs for children [similar to PBS kids] during the day) and documentaries and the like evenings (possibly repeated 3 hour blocks overnight) and 1 BBC Radio station (Talk/News - similar to NPR), leave the entertainment programs and music radio to commercial interests.


Kirk Bayne
 

IMHO, there should be 1 BBC TV channel (programs for children [similar to PBS kids] during the day) and documentaries and the like evenings (possibly repeated 3 hour blocks overnight) and 1 BBC Radio station (Talk/News - similar to NPR), leave the entertainment programs and music radio to commercial interests.
That's not the standard in Europe and, even in many places in Asia where the government has a dominant position in broadcasting. Even Canada has far more impact from its CBC service than our semi-autonomous NPR and PBS.
 
So now the debate will be options to replace the license fee. The BBC is non-commercial in the UK, so adding commercials is one option:


Certain required services could be paid for by a government grant. They're currently offering an online subscription service.
 
This should be looked at in the context of an unpopular government attempting to distract from its current woes - a poor economy, rising living costs and repeated breaking of the 2020-21 Covid rules by the prime minister and other government figures. The next UK election is due before 2024, so what happens in 2027 is down to which party is elected.

The opposition Labour party (currently 10 points ahead in the polls) have already said that they would keep the BBC's funding arrangement as-is, which makes this an election issue rather than a done deal.
 
Even in the UK, the more left-leaning political parties, like Labour, support publicly-funded arts and culture, including public broadcasting, while the right-leaning parties, like Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservatives, typically look to cut funding to those sorts of things. It's a difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives globally, so yes, it will be an election issue over there.
 
After more thought - maybe just a single BBC national (24 hr talk/news) radio network (no BBC TV at all) with an associated website, the website would have a link for streaming the network audio and also be able to provide short videos (free from YouTube censorship) of content related to the talk and news subjects.

I'd still have a funding method shielded (as much as possible) from direct Gov. control (perhaps a low 12 pound/yr. license fee).


Kirk Bayne
 
After more thought - maybe just a single BBC national (24 hr talk/news) radio network (no BBC TV at all)

Re-read the article you posted. Nobody is talking about cutting back on service. Just eliminating the tax. So everyone still expects the Beeb to continue providing all the content they've been providing with a different financial structure.
 
I think reducing the number of BBC channels (radio and TV) should be on the table, in the last few years, the BBC has consolidated some of their separate TV channels (relinquished the DTV subchannel) and moved their popular content to other BBC channels or online.

(I can understand why a license fee funded system would be needed in the early days of radio and TV, with their costly infrastructure needs just to get signals on the air for initially just a few listeners and viewers, but now, I don't understand the need to fund all sorts of programs [which could likely get commercial support]).


Kirk Bayne
 
(I can understand why a license fee funded system would be needed in the early days of radio and TV, with their costly infrastructure needs just to get signals on the air for initially just a few listeners and viewers, but now, I don't understand the need to fund all sorts of programs [which could likely get commercial support]).
Yet in many parts of the world where the government did not control broadcasting, both radio and TV developed well on their own.

A good example lies in the fact that the first working color TV system in the world was developed by a Televisa engineer in Mexico!

 
I don't understand the need to fund all sorts of programs [which could likely get commercial support]).

The expense isn't in programming. The expense is providing the channels in poor, rural areas. Those big towers and transmitters. That's also the issue in this country. The reason for federal funding for PBS and NPR has nothing to do with programming. It's to fund state broadcasting systems in rural and remote parts of the country. The big city stations are self sustaining.
 
Kirk, point of curiosity - have you ever been to the UK and/or consumed any of the BBC's domestic services? There's a much richer tapestry to what they provide beyond the World Service.
And we have to recognize that even with commercial competitors, the BBC has excellent ratings and a wide range of programming from pure entertainment to in-depth news and information.

Because it has always been there, the BBC has tradition, respect and authority. To some extent, this applies to Canada and the CBC as well. In the US, there is no hundred-year history of state broadcasting, and serious lack of funding and dedication in prior eras.

In some markets, such as DC and San Francisco, well supported and funded stations "like the BBC" are thriving. But there is no such national dominance like what we see in England, Canada and many European nations where official broadcasting has commercial competitors.

I was always impressed by Italy's state TV operation. I got to see them do the "San Remo" annual music competition and it was an amazing song festival with incredible artists and production; much better than the somewhat comparable events in the US. And it features brand new songs, not established "hits". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanremo_Music_Festival
 
In some markets, such as DC and San Francisco, well supported and funded stations "like the BBC" are thriving. But there is no such national dominance

Because they're relatively new to the landscape, and operate under the US rules of localism, where the stations own the national service, not the other way around. That might be an interesting business model for the Beeb. Force it to operate as a decentralized service, based in the hinterlands, where stations get funding, and they pay for the national programming.
 
Kirk, point of curiosity - have you ever been to the UK and/or consumed any of the BBC's domestic services? There's a much richer tapestry to what they provide beyond the World Service.

No, I haven't, was to Belgium in 1989-05, a few BBC channels were on the hotel cable TV system (and of course, the 50Hz flicker made TV viewing very pleasant).

I guess it's the same old same old - if the content (radio or TV) is good quality, advertisers would likely want to support it, so does it need license fee/gov support?


Kirk Bayne
 
I guess it's the same old same old - if the content (radio or TV) is good quality, advertisers would likely want to support it, so does it need license fee/gov support?

Advertisers base their decisions on reaching target audience and delivering customers, not the quality of programming. Foundations and underwriters are more interested in quality, which is why they support PBS in our country. These are two different business models.
 
No, I haven't

All due respect, then, it's very hard to have an intelligent discussion about this topic without a firm grounding in the BBC's unique history and all the remarkable services it provides, in ways that are completely alien to anyone who's only experienced American commercial broadcasting and our very limited public broadcasting system.

There's a 100-year legacy of public service there that long predates any sort of commercial broadcasting in the UK. There was no commercial television until 1955, and no domestic commercial radio until the early 1970s. Turning the BBC into an advertising-driven service would so radically change its nature as to be unrecognizable.

I'd very strongly encourage you to spend some time reading up on the BBC's history and listening to some of its many offerings, especially on the radio side. Radio 1 has the explicit remit to serve younger listeners and to keep changing as new generations of listeners move into its demographic. Its offshoot 1Xtra is specifically aimed at minority audiences. Radio 2 is one of the most remarkable AC-flavo(u)red broadcast services in the world. Radio 3 is simply the finest cultural radio service on the globe. Radio 4 provides all sorts of spoken-word programming that has only the faintest equivalent here - there's radio drama and comedy that does not exist anywhere here, and would not find commercial advertiser support if they tried. (Just one tiny example: we wouldn't have Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy if it hadn't started as a Radio 4 experiment.) There are also panel shows that are brilliant and often hilarious (that's where we copied Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me! from), public affairs, poetry, literary talk, religious discussions, a radio soap opera (The Archers) that has been running for longer than we've been alive, and on and on and on. Radio 4 alone supports an incredible ecosystem of British writers, producers, content creators, talent and other audio artists who'd never be able to do the things they do without the BBC. (Entire books have been written about the unique entity that is Radio 4.) Radio 5 Live is a more traditional news/talk/sports service of a type we'd recognize here. Then there are 6Music and several other more niche digital services that program more specific music and talk formats, none of which are duplicated in the commercial world.

And all of those are just the main national services. There's BBC local radio that provides important news and information for communities all over Britain, there are national services that are the only national radio services to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there are language services in Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, there's the BBC South Asian service that provides an important service to immigrant communities in the Midlands, and that's just the linear radio offerings.

It's an amazing institution, and while it certainly has its issues and problems, pulling the plug on its funding source is a political ploy, not an answer. What the Tories are proposing is an act of cultural vandalism. It deserves plenty of discussion - but only in the context of a better understanding of what the BBC has been, still is, and is in the process of becoming.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom