Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
If The Tv Licence Fee Is Abolished And The Bbc Made Subscription Only, How Would It Work?
29 Answers
Would everyone who wanted to subscribe need to get and pay for broadband?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The government aren't happy with the BBC and have wielded a big stick. But they haven't thought through the consequences. BBC News (in all its forms) has been critical of the Beeb, but that's part of their job. What defunding would have to take account of is the amount of "product" the BBC commissions and the consequences to other channels if advertising was the answer.
Why would there be any need for broadband? Sky runs a subscription service via satellite (the signals from which anybody with a suitable dish can pick up). So I don't see any difficulty running a subscription service via terrestrial broadcasts. The signal can be encoded and recipients would just need something similar to a Sky box (which would probably cost less than a year's TV licence) to decode it.
I heard Yasmin Alibhai-Brown last night droning on about how the BBC is a "national treasure" and how over half a billion people listen to the BBC's World Service. Well I pay to help run the World Service and it is of no interest to me whatsoever. I have to pay for it so that I can legally tune in to any non-BBC outputs I wish to view. Perhaps the half a billion who do listen to it would like to chip in towards its running costs. As for the BBC being a "national treasure", words fail me. The NHS is also said to be a national treasure and criticising it in any way is seen as heresy. So you can see what happens when an organisation becomes beyond criticism because it is so "treasured."
I heard Yasmin Alibhai-Brown last night droning on about how the BBC is a "national treasure" and how over half a billion people listen to the BBC's World Service. Well I pay to help run the World Service and it is of no interest to me whatsoever. I have to pay for it so that I can legally tune in to any non-BBC outputs I wish to view. Perhaps the half a billion who do listen to it would like to chip in towards its running costs. As for the BBC being a "national treasure", words fail me. The NHS is also said to be a national treasure and criticising it in any way is seen as heresy. So you can see what happens when an organisation becomes beyond criticism because it is so "treasured."
Anyway, here’s a Guardian article from today with some interesting ideas / facts:
https:/
https:/
Nearly all the TV programmes on Freeview and Freesat are paid for by advertising. This means that we all subsidise them, whther we watch them or not, whenever we buy anything from a company which pays to advertise on these channels. The TV licence is just a direct way of paying and is a known quantity, unlike the money we pay to companies who advertise.
//...Nearly all the TV programmes on Freeview and Freesat are paid for by advertising. This means that we all subsidise them,...//
You can say the same about advertising hoardings. You have no control over how much a company whose products you buy spends on advertising or where they place their adverts.
The shortcomings of the BBC funding model is that you are compelled by law to fund it regardless of whether you use it. This is of course true of many other things the government funds. But the difference is that those other things are funded from central taxation which is collected according to means. £159 is quite a chunk for a single mother unable to work(by far and away the category of person forming the majority of TV licence non-payers). Whereas the same sum for a household with four adults earning decent salaries is peanuts. If the government's benevolence stretches to funding a broadcaster it can at least have the decency to ensure that people who may not watch or listen to its output are only taxed according to their means.
You can say the same about advertising hoardings. You have no control over how much a company whose products you buy spends on advertising or where they place their adverts.
The shortcomings of the BBC funding model is that you are compelled by law to fund it regardless of whether you use it. This is of course true of many other things the government funds. But the difference is that those other things are funded from central taxation which is collected according to means. £159 is quite a chunk for a single mother unable to work(by far and away the category of person forming the majority of TV licence non-payers). Whereas the same sum for a household with four adults earning decent salaries is peanuts. If the government's benevolence stretches to funding a broadcaster it can at least have the decency to ensure that people who may not watch or listen to its output are only taxed according to their means.
Many TV services are subscription-only. Is there any technical reason the BBC couldn't? Surely, to provide unsolicited services and then demand payment, isn't that ethical? It may have made sense more when, if you owned a TV, BBC was pretty much your only choice, but that hasn't been the case for decades now.
NJ //The shortcomings of the BBC funding model is that you are compelled by law to fund it regardless of whether you use it.//. That isn't the case, is it? You only need to pay for a license in certain circumstances. They do seem to be realising more, that fewer people require them. Although, after 2 years, I got a letter recently, where I had to ring or write (email form didn't work), to reiterate that I don't want their services.
Not many companies could get away with that.
NJ //The shortcomings of the BBC funding model is that you are compelled by law to fund it regardless of whether you use it.//. That isn't the case, is it? You only need to pay for a license in certain circumstances. They do seem to be realising more, that fewer people require them. Although, after 2 years, I got a letter recently, where I had to ring or write (email form didn't work), to reiterate that I don't want their services.
Not many companies could get away with that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.