UKC

It was a bit subtle in the Radio 4 coverage but it sounds like the charter renewal will extend TV licence to anyone using catch up services.

Surely that's going to mean a lot more people, anyone with broadband, plus a lot of businesses. Unless they reduce the fee their receipts are going to go up.

In reply to Philip:



They're (the governement) are making it free for over 75's. That will cost 608 million, it will have to cover that cost first before it will net gain from any change.

In reply to FreshSlate:

It is already free for them. It's just where that money comes from is changing to the BBC.

In reply to marsbar:


Didn't realise that. Where did the money come from? The government didn't offer something it couldn't pay for did it?

In reply to Philip:

So is it just bbc catch up services that you need a licence for or other channels and services?
Can't see how they will produce more revenue with this.
Those that don't pay at the moment because they watch online aren't going to start buying a licence if they change it.
confused

In reply to FreshSlate:

I think its been free to over 75s for a very long time but as we are living longer its becomes a bigger cost. I think its the other side of the current deal where they get money from the on demand watchers. Give with one hand, take with the other.

In reply to FreshSlate:


It was introduced under Brown in 2001 and was from the Work and Pensions budget. Part of the normal bribes for the elderly since they turn out to vote.

In reply to jimjimjim:

They will if you have to register for a login using a licence number, which would to me seem a sensible way to handle it. No licence, no access. Far easier than dealing with TVs.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


Either a licence number or pay per view or a separate subscription.
I suspect it will be all three. Perhaps licence +online as opposed to auto included.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Best plan is just don't watch there brainwashing advert filled rubbish , having to pay for it is just rubbing salt in the wound

In reply to solomonkey:

Sorry; are we watching the same BBC...?

In reply to dissonance:

Did not know! I can definitely see the vote winning aspect of it. But I thought it was a conservative pledge? I assumed to keep it?

In reply to marsbar:


No - that isn't the reason. It was a measure bought in by Brown during the Blair years to appease Tony's dad who was rather aggrieved one year at only seeing his weekly pension increase by 50p or something. At present, the government effectively pays on behalf of these pensioners so it is a cost of around £700 million to the government.

The government have done a deal with the BBC that means the BBC now have to fund these licenses i.e. they will take a £700 million hit. However, in return the BBC will be allowed to raise the license fee in line with inflation (it is currently frozen) and also start charging for on demand services. This will also include the ITV player. This seems fair as at the moment, sacking off the license fee in favour of on demand services is a legal tax dodge. But we don't like tax dodgers do we?

In reply to Philip:

So the group who watch the most hours of tv per day get it free, while those who watch less have to pay an increasing amount. Seems incredibly unfair. I've never really empathised with the anti bbc thinking, but now i am starting to.

This will just further cement my attitude that tv is crap. The only thing i have watched on the bbc recently is mr norrel and johnathen strange (excellent btw), and have i got news for you. Sadly i'll just do without.

In reply to illepo:


No different to bus fares etc. But all of this seems to me a roundabout way of avoiding paying pensions at a proper, liveable level.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

off topic but i agree with lower bus fares for the elderly, gets them out and about so to speak. TV is the opposite though.

In reply to illepo:
You have forgotten the new UK over riding rule - if your old and rich then the government will make sure it does everything in its power to improve your situation in life, whereas if you are young, old and poor, disabled etc then you are f*cked.

In reply to Philip:

Silly outdated business model. Though I reckon they'll get another 20 years out of it before people start streaming all their media over fibre and once that starts downloaded video will increase a huge amount. Already very popular with todays 20s/30s (and to a lesser extent older than that).

In reply to Removed User:


But isn't this exactly the issue the BBC is now addressing? I suspect the problem was a political one in that they needed parliament to change the law on the licence and Hall has done a deal where the BBC gets an automatic inflation-linked increase and the right to charge for online content in return for administering the over -75s concession.

Seems completely reasonable to me to stop people watching BBC iPlayer for free while crowing (sometimes on here) that they never watch live tv and will never pay for a licence.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I absolutely agree. Either use of the iPlayer should be chargeable (by credit/debit card), advertising should be added to it, or the licence should be required to apply to it. As a licence holder (who doesn't watch TV often) I resent the idea that it should be possible to avoid it entirely other than those who consume no BBC content whatsoever in any form.

As I said I'd equally be happy to see the return of the radio licence.

FWIW there are a number of countries where their equivalent applies to any media consumption device whether used for that purpose or not, I believe, PCs included...

Neil

In reply to captain paranoia:

No I don't watch the BBC .

In reply to Neil Williams:

If it's a public service used by the vast majority of the population, wouldn't it be better funded through general taxation? Would save a huge operation to administer licenses and chase payment, and retired folk and those with very low incomes would effectively be accessing it for free without any extra checks or constraints.

But then again you could say similar things about most indirect taxation but none of it will change in a hurry; it keeps headline tax rates low and also reduces the relative tax burden on the well-off.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes that would be one way but I think people would find a way round it or go elsewhere. Either way I can see the BBC struggling to maintain the same amount of income as it has in the past. Technology is changing so fast. I watch most of my TV on amazon prime, Netflix and YouTube all of which I don't need a licence for (I think). I have a license but can see a day soon where I decided it's not value for money and unplug.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I've got no problem with the BBC charging to watch iPlayer. With a Netflix/Amazon subscription iPlayer is irrelevant to me. However, I suspect this is about preserving the licence fee model by turning it into an internet tax so they will make you pay if you use any internet video service, or more likely just have an internet connection. Just like you need to pay for having a TV even if you don't watch the BBC. For government closing this 'loophole' has the convenient side effect of giving them another excuse for forcing ISPs to install technology to monitor everyone's internet connection.

In reply to solomonkey:


On principle?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

He doesn't like the adverts, apparently...

In reply to john arran:


The other major advantage of that policy is that it would take a sharp knife to the throat of Crapita.

In reply to john arran:

I agree general taxation would be a good idea, the possible problem there is that it might give the Government too much influence.

Neil

In reply to jimjimjim:


Why not? It's nearly impossible to prove someone watched a broadcast on their TV without actually going out and observing them doing it. It's a lot easier to monitor who or at least which IP address watches what via the internet. I don't see evasion being especially easy or more to the point, 'safe'.

jk

In reply to Neil Williams:

What about those people that don't watch TV or any media on the screen other than using the internet to check their emails etc? How would general taxing be fair on them? A license fee/tax/whatever, liable to be paid by anyone that uses the service, is the only fair way that I can see of charging.

In reply to NottsRich:
What about those people that don't watch TV or any media on the screen other than using the internet to check their emails etc? How would general taxing be fair on them?

I'm pretty sure we all pay taxes that go towards things we personally don't use and/or believe in. However, we pay it because it's been decreed that it's for the greater good and not based on what an individual chooses is good for them.

In reply to NottsRich:

The BBC is a high quality service that is useful and available to everyone - general taxation would be the most efficient way of funding it, except that it's to some extent at the mercy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Everyone pays (and lot more) for education and health services that they never use, but it's seen as the contribution you make for living in a civilised society. Surely the BBC comes into the same category?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Or if it doesn't, it should be abolished.

Neil

In reply to Dave Garnett:

So you work for the BBC ,,, that doesn't make it a quality service ! shockingly poor quality considering the amount of money they rake in , I hope they do start charging for iplayer on line as then people will soon loose interest ! if only the government would make it a fair and equal market for normal TV , I know which channels i'd be paying for !

In reply to solomonkey:

Which are the especially poor bits do you think? The highbrow BBC4 /Michael Mosley/ Brian Cox stuff, the Jonathan Strange / Wolf Hall drama stuff, the populist Strictly Come Dancing stuff or the shockingly poor news service?

Or maybe the adverts?

Just wondering since you obviously watch so much television.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Don't forget the 7 national, one world wide, several foreign (and welsh, alba) language and countless local radio stations

In reply to Philip:

I must be the only contented person.
I pay around £12 a month for the licence and think that's pretty good for the news, sport, radio 5 in the car and the odd drama/documentary I watch without the bilge or adverts from other places.
I don't mind it going up by inflation at all.....

Be nice if wealthy over 75's and IPlayer watchers contributed to BBC cost of making the programmes as well. Not sure why they wouldn't feel it's equally good value.

In reply to Babika:

Or you work for them ! Pile of rubbish if you ask me , they should scrap the BBC sooner the better , equal market would show peoples real loyalty .

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I don't like any of those , especially dancing ! Why would I want to pay them to make programs I don't like ! oh and the news service is nothing special either, so what's you point again , no adverts - it's constant adverts but about more BBC programs they want you to pay/watch , it's a constant BBC cycle of advertising - they are trying to create BBC zombies who think it's great and who don't mind paying double or for iplayer it whatever they decide , after all there in control of TV

In reply to solomonkey:

Out of morbid curiosity, do you watch any BBC, and if not what do you watch? (or do you not have TV given your disgust at supporting the BBC through a licence fee?)

I'm pretty sure the BBC don't control ITV, CH4, Al Jazeera, Sky, or even Netflix.

In reply to solomonkey:

OK, fair enough, maybe it was the Glastonbury coverage that tipped you over the edge. I can only say that the more I see of TV elsewhere in the world, the more I like the BBC. Nowhere else do I see anything like the in-depth analysis and political balance (at least not in English - some French, Norwegian and German channels aren't terrible where I can follow them).

It's not that there isn't anything else worth watching (HBO has some really good stuff for example, or do you hate that too?) but it all costs significantly more than the BBC.

Actually, what do you like?

In reply to solomonkey:

Personally I'd be paying for the BBC. I rarely watch anything else, and when I do it's usually Channel 4.

Neil

In reply to Dave Garnett:

No, it's that truly awful Jim Al- Khalili they always get on for those interminable science programmes, as if anyone would want to wotch sutch stuffe!

In reply to solomonkey:

"The Archers" alone is worth the entire annual fee!

In reply to Neil Williams:

General taxation would be more efficient.

2010 BBC spent £130 million chasing non payers and 12% of all magistrate court cases in the UK are licence fee avoiders (3500 a week!)

Staggering

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

But then, as others have said, the BBC would be in hock to the government of the day and would be a political mouthpiece for them rather than the Independent Broadcaster it is at the moment.

In reply to Babika:

I wouldn't have thought it insurmountable and that a funding arrangement could be effectively guaranteed once in place, maybe by requiring a higher majority in parliament to change it. State funding doesn't necessarily mean direct government control.

In reply to Babika:

I should add though that snow will fall in the sahara before a Tory government considers it!