The BBC license fee

[Mega Tsunami]

Prove that it is necessary, then prove why the government can't deliver this through Newspapers, or some other media. Surely, with all the crap that's printed in some of the more biased papers, there should be some sort of government funded, impartial newspaper that's paid for by... lets see... anyone who can read?

There already is a Government sponsored newspaper – The Guardian. It basically wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the myriad of government jobs advertised in it.
The Tories made a barbed warning to The Guardian just a few weeks ago – They could save the country up to a billion pounds a year if all government (inc local) job adverts went through a new on-line jobs site. Makes you think, huh?

Talking of newspapers: You are, I am sure, aware that 4 of the top five newspapers are right wing papers. (and the one exception – the Mirror can barely be called a newspaper.)
In a free market, why wouldn’t TV reflect our newspaper preferences? I repeat one of the main things I reckon – that Ch4 News etc. would not exist in its present form if the BBC became commercial.
You say you would just end up watching the BBC news if Ch4 news stopped, but surely BBC news would not be anything like its present form because it would have to change to survive. Indeed, the whole of the BBC would have to change to survive.

Do you really want our top 5 Channels to effectively be:

SunTV, MailTV, ExpressTV, MirrorTV and TelegraphTV

As I said before, lefties like you don’t know how lucky you are with the current set up.
And this is all a bit ironic, is it not, with such a warning coming from a righty like myself.

 

[happy_Alex]

If the BBC were solely a tool for educating students in compulsory education, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If the BBC provided primary health care, or street-lighting, or armed protection against foreign invaders, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about the 99 million things that the BBC actually does, the provision of which do not fall under the remit of the government.

Why should they not fall under the remit of government? Just because you say so?

The BBC was founded as a public organisation. The voting public clearly belive that there is a social intrest and responsiblity with the media. Why do you have a problem than that.

There already is a Government sponsored newspaper – The Guardian. It basically wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the myriad of government jobs advertised in it.
The Tories made a barbed warning to The Guardian just a few weeks ago – They could save the country up to a billion pounds a year if all government (inc local) job adverts went through a new on-line jobs site. Makes you think, huh?

Talking of newspapers: You are, I am sure, aware that 4 of the top five newspapers are right wing papers. (and the one exception – the Mirror can barely be called a newspaper.)
In a free market, why wouldn’t TV reflect our newspaper preferences? I repeat one of the main things I reckon – that Ch4 News etc. would not exist in its present form if the BBC became commercial.
You say you would just end up watching the BBC news if Ch4 news stopped, but surely BBC news would not be anything like its present form because it would have to change to survive. Indeed, the whole of the BBC would have to change to survive.

Do you really want our top 5 Channels to effectively be:

SunTV, MailTV, ExpressTV, MirrorTV and TelegraphTV

As I said before, lefties like you don’t know how lucky you are with the current set up.
And this is all a bit ironic, is it not, with such a warning coming from a righty like myself.

Excellent point, though the Guardian can be critical of Labour, thought they tend to come from the perspective of genuine public intrest rather than representing rthe values and agenda of right wing institutionalised backers.

For example, look at the cash for honours row going on at the momemt. No crime has been committed, yet the media have hysterically been trying to brand the government as corrupt. "Cash-for-honours" has always happened historically but some of the media has been treating it as if Tony Blair invented it.

Also, why did the police raid and arrest a government advisor at 6:00 in the morning? To give the media ammunition to attack labour. Sorry, but this is this is an example of the right wing media attacking Labour, they simply would not treat a Tory government in the same way. The police have dragged the whole thing out for maximum political damage: why has it taken 10 months to decide whether to go ahead with a prosecution when all the witnesses are just around the corner. They took TWO months to decide about the Litvinenko.

Look at the way the media treated Labour when they were out of government. The papers would smear Labour with accusations of being communists, even though Millitant were an entryist organisation. Labour 'invented' spin to manage a media supremely hostile to its' egalitarian and social agenda.

 

[brennan]

For example, look at the cash for honours row going on at the momemt. No crime has been committed, yet the media have hysterically been trying to brand the government as corrupt. "Cash-for-honours" has always happened historically

You can hardly deny it happened if you then say it's always happened. This is an ugly facet of our democracy we could do without.

The police have dragged the whole thing out for maximum political damage: why has it taken 10 months to decide whether to go ahead with a prosecution when all the witnesses are just around the corner. They took TWO months to decide about the Litvinenko.

What have the police been arresting people for lately?: suspicion of a cover-up. That's what's taking so long.

 

[Mise]

Sorry I will try to be clearer. Kosher 4th estate + informed citizenry are cornerstones of democracy. The BBC is not a necessary condition for kosher 4th estate + informed citizenry. The BBC tends towards the perpetuation of a Kosher 4th estate and an informed citizenry.

Hmm, it's probably because I don't know what any of those mean

There already is a Government sponsored newspaper – The Guardian. It basically wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the myriad of government jobs advertised in it.
The Tories made a barbed warning to The Guardian just a few weeks ago – They could save the country up to a billion pounds a year if all government (inc local) job adverts went through a new on-line jobs site. Makes you think, huh?

Talking of newspapers: You are, I am sure, aware that 4 of the top five newspapers are right wing papers. (and the one exception – the Mirror can barely be called a newspaper.)
In a free market, why wouldn’t TV reflect our newspaper preferences? I repeat one of the main things I reckon – that Ch4 News etc. would not exist in its present form if the BBC became commercial.
You say you would just end up watching the BBC news if Ch4 news stopped, but surely BBC news would not be anything like its present form because it would have to change to survive. Indeed, the whole of the BBC would have to change to survive.

Do you really want our top 5 Channels to effectively be:

SunTV, MailTV, ExpressTV, MirrorTV and TelegraphTV

As I said before, lefties like you don’t know how lucky you are with the current set up.
And this is all a bit ironic, is it not, with such a warning coming from a righty like myself.

As I said before, if there is a market for something, it will be provided. Clearly there is a market for left wing newspapers, given that the Independent and the Guardian both exist, and clearly this will be reflected in TV channels. You admit that the market would reflect Newspaper preferences, no?

And this is all a bit ironic, with such an economics lesson coming from a lefty like myself.

Why should they not fall under the remit of government? Just because you say so?

Because the free market can do it just as well, if not better.

The BBC was founded as a public organisation. The voting public clearly belive that there is a social intrest and responsiblity with the media. Why do you have a problem than that.

Oh really?

Almost 70% of people in the UK want changes to the way the BBC is funded

36% - Paid subscription for BBC services
31% - Funded through advertising
31% - Existing licence fee

Notwithstanding the fact that, just because 50% of the people believe that Jews should be brutally murdered doesn't mean that Jews should be brutally murdered...

 

[Brighteye]

... a weekly newspaper would cost less than £10 a month, I'd wager. I don't know how much radio costs, but I bet it's a lot less. Admitting that you would scrap the BBC's TV service in favour of a purely radioed service goes a long way to allaying my fears ...
...

The bolded statements are not incompatible with an entirely private broadcasting service. If there is a market for impartial information, someone will step in and provide it. I'd say that the market guarantees this public service. The question, as always, is of price -- are you willing to accept the price of impartial news? When you say that commerce will provide it "only as much as it is profitable", what you are really saying is that they will provide it "only as much as you are willing to pay". Instead of the cost of the guarantee being shouldered by the entire population, it is now only being shouldered by those who actually want that guarantee.

I await the clever chappy's cost analysis of this... Either way though, if the BBC is a necessity for democracy, it should be provided to everyone in the country, through taxes, not through an optional license fee. If, OTOH, it is a luxury, the proper way of determining whether government intervention is required is through looking at the cost of it all.

TBH I'm happy to leave it at that. My terms have been satisfied at least...

I agree that the BBC should be funded through a tax system, and I'd be happy to see it become much more of a radio service (although its educational, as well as informative, nature would be best served in some subjects through use of pictures as well as commentary).

The reason I think that everyone should pay is because it benefits everyone if the population is well-informed and educated. I only put in the part 'if they so choose' because we can't really force anyone to do much at all. I think it's part of a citizen's responsibility to be educated about politics and what's going on, and the state's responsibility to enable them to do so.

It doesn't matter if private companies could give reasonably accurate information, in reasonable amounts, at good prices. I think that what is important here is that we have an accurate and reliable service that is free for everyone (at point of delivery), so that everyone in the country can be a responsible citizen. Reasonably good just isn't good enough.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

As I said before, if there is a market for something, it will be provided. Clearly there is a market for left wing newspapers, given that the Independent and the Guardian both exist, and clearly this will be reflected in TV channels. You admit that the market would reflect Newspaper preferences, no?

And this is all a bit ironic, with such an economics lesson coming from a lefty like myself.

I am astonished you, a lefty, are happy to go from a situation we have now of a general left/liberal bias in the media as a whole (due to the size and domination of the BBC) to one which (if it follows newspapers) would be right wing based.

The Tories would almost definitely get in with all that support and it would be goodbye The Guardian because it is (as I said) subsidised by the Government, leaving just the lil old Indy to fight your corner. And who takes any notice of that rag?

Even me, a righty, doesn’t want all that…

 

[Brighteye]

The Tories would almost definitely get in with all that support and it would be goodbye The Guardian because it is (as I said) subsidised by the Government, leaving just the lil old Indy to fight your corner. And who takes any notice of that rag?

Even me, a righty, doesn’t want all that…

I like the Indy. The rest of it sounds good too.

 

[GinandTonic]

The Tories would almost definitely get in with all that support and it would be goodbye The Guardian because it is (as I said) subsidised by the Government, leaving just the lil old Indy to fight your corner. And who takes any notice of that rag?

Even me, a righty, doesn’t want all that…

I see your arguement for the guardian being subsidised by the gov, but it is a little misleading. The job pages of the guardian are the industry standard for national advertising of non-it posts vacant. The gov uses the industry standard. If the Guardian cornered the market by being the best a righty should say good luck to 'em.

 

[happy_Alex]

Because the free market can do it just as well, if not better.

Again because you say so? This is a generalisation. Generalisations are generally bad. In a general sort of way.

Oh really?

Almost 70% of people in the UK want changes to the way the BBC is funded

36% - Paid subscription for BBC services
31% - Funded through advertising
31% - Existing licence fee

Ummmm..... meaning that 36% Paid subscription for BBC services + 31%Existing licence fee = 67% want continued public funding. You just shot your self in the foot there.

Notwithstanding the fact that, just because 50% of the people believe that Jews should be brutally murdered doesn't mean that Jews should be brutally murdered...

My god ! And if 50% of people agree with me, that makes me a NAZI!

ARRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bhsup]

Hrm. I took the 36% paid subscription figure to mean people who want it would sign up to get it. Not sure how that would work over the air, unless they encrypted their broadcast signal and then rented you a box to enable viewing.

 

[GinandTonic]

Well if the encryption of digital terresterial hadnt been so comprehensivly broken there would have been an in-place revinue stream. Since itv digital went belly-up because almost everyone had every channel for free the mechanism is not in place.

 

[bhsup]

I didn't even know they did it. That's probably why advertising works over here and not over the air subscriptions.

 

[GinandTonic]

I didn't even know they did it. That's probably why advertising works over here and not over the air subscriptions.

IIRC -

It was always easy for people to break the encription for a couple of days but that didnt really matter since the hassle of going to a guy with a smart-card writer for a few days free stuff was more than the hassle of paying. Some guys used a "supercomputer" in Israel (without authorisation) to break the encryption at a lower level, so the all-channels-free lasted for months. News corp had connections with the company in some way. It put the main challenger to Sky out of biz.

This was the basis of many theories, even sensible people thought it looked decididly dodgy.

 

[EdwardTking]

So, according to you, non-essential things are things that people used to have 100 years ago...?

I never typed that or implied that.

100 years ago, men smoked tobacco and women wore corsets.
Neither tobacco or corsets are essential.

Your list of what is essential is complete baloney.

 

[bhsup]

Absolutely essential:

Food
Water
Shelter (to a degree)
Clothing (to a degree)

Everything else is just qualify of life stuff

 

[Mega Tsunami]

I see your arguement for the guardian being subsidised by the gov, but it is a little misleading. The job pages of the guardian are the industry standard for national advertising of non-it posts vacant. The gov uses the industry standard. If the Guardian cornered the market by being the best a righty should say good luck to 'em.

Like I said earlier – the Tories reckon they could save us poor hard done-by tax payers up to £1bn pa if all Government job adverts (not just the Guardian of course) were put onto a single Govt. jobs web site. Makes perfect sense to me.

It would save a few forests as well of course; there is just no need anymore for all those jobs to appear in print, week after week.

Now I personally would not want to lose the Guardian but according to my ‘back of fag packet’ calculations it would save each householder about £30 pa. (based on a BBC budget of £4bn and a quarter of £130 is about £30 )
(I wonder if Mise is happy paying that £30 )

I also suspect the Tories won’t want to kill off the Guardian either but there is always the threat if they ‘misbehave’.

 

[happy_Alex]

Like I said earlier – the Tories reckon they could save us poor hard done-by tax payers up to £1bn pa if all Government job adverts (not just the Guardian of course) were put onto a single Govt. jobs web site. Makes perfect sense to me.

It would save a few forests as well of course; there is just no need anymore for all those jobs to appear in print, week after week.

Now I personally would not want to lose the Guardian but according to my ‘back of fag packet’ calculations it would save each householder about £30 pa. (based on a BBC budget of £4bn and a quarter of £130 is about £30 )
(I wonder if Mise is happy paying that £30 )

I also suspect the Tories won’t want to kill off the Guardian either but there is always the threat if they ‘misbehave’.

What, the government spends 1bn a year on aDvertising jobs? I find that hard to believe.

 

[GinandTonic]

Now I personally would not want to lose the Guardian but according to my ‘back of fag packet’ calculations it would save each householder about £30 pa. (based on a BBC budget of £4bn and a quarter of £130 is about £30 )
(I wonder if Mise is happy paying that £30 )

Erm every tax payer doesnt pay a whole licence fee.

IIRC

45m ish tax payers

A smidge over 20m housholds, with 95% TV ownership and *wildly guestimates* therefore say 75% licence-fee payers. Lot of people dont pay the licence be they dodgers or the elderly etc.

Therefore something just over 15m licences? Something in that ball-park anyway.

So to base a staistic on the assumption the number of tax-payers is the same as the number of licence-fee payers builds in a 300% error.

Householder and household not being the same thing.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Erm every tax payer doesnt pay a whole licence fee.

IIRC

45m ish tax payers

A smidge over 20m housholds, with 95% TV ownership and *wildly guestimates* therefore say 75% licence-fee payers. Lot of people dont pay the licence be they dodgers or the elderly etc.

Therefore something just over 15m licences? Something in that ball-park anyway.

So to base a staistic on the assumption the number of tax-payers is the same as the number of licence-fee payers builds in a 300% error.

Householder and household not being the same thing.

Well, I did say it was ‘back of a fag packet’.

Nevertheless, I am sure you would agree, the money saved would buy one or two new hospitals. And save one or two forests.

 

[Mise]

Again because you say so? This is a generalisation. Generalisations are generally bad. In a general sort of way.

It's not a generalisation, it's the fundamental relationship between public good and private freedom; it defines where one ends and the other begins.

Ummmm..... meaning that 36% Paid subscription for BBC services + 31%Existing licence fee = 67% want continued public funding. You just shot your self in the foot there.

Ummmm..... meaning that 36% of people want the BBC to be funded in the same way that Sky Digital or NTL/Telewest is funded... How is that "public funding"?

My god ! And if 50% of people agree with me, that makes me a NAZI!

ARRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It makes 50% of the population a threat to those minorities discriminated against, which is why the government needs rules over what it can and cannot do. If you're observant you'll realise that this means that the government's remit is not solely limited by public opinion, but also by fundamental human rights. In this case, it would be the right to reasonably retain what earnings one accrues through one's own labour. Again, if you are observant, you'll realise that this protects the population from excessive government power.

Your list of what is essential is complete baloney.

Exactly, it's purely subjective. The government should provide only what is essential in protecting the population from abuses of fundamental rights (in this case human rights). Unfortunately, we don't have any written constitution, so this is somewhat airy-fairy. The EU laid down some human rights that its member states' governments should protect. I don't recall TV's being mentioned. Fortunately, we don't have any written constitution, so this is somewhat airy-fairy. Even then it seems a stretch to think that providing everyone with access to impartial information constitutes a basic human right.

I am astonished you, a lefty, are happy to go from a situation we have now of a general left/liberal bias in the media as a whole (due to the size and domination of the BBC) to one which (if it follows newspapers) would be right wing based.

Personally I sincerely doubt that newspaper preferences adequately reflect media preferences as a whole. I certainly don't read any papers, but am a lefty. I'd say that less than a quarter of the voting population read newspapers, and it is clear from the results of opinion polls (not to mention election results) that the newspaper figures do not at all reflect voting figures. This is probably why we don't elect governments based on newspaper readership.

As for you back of a fag packet calculation, as I've said, there is something fundamentally wrong with taking trends from one medium and applying it to the population at large.

Whether or not the Guardian would exist without gov't advertising is not at question; it's whether or not the audience that the Guardian caters for would exist without the Guardian. It clearly would.

It doesn't matter if private companies could give reasonably accurate information, in reasonable amounts, at good prices. I think that what is important here is that we have an accurate and reliable service that is free for everyone (at point of delivery), so that everyone in the country can be a responsible citizen. Reasonably good just isn't good enough.

Well, it's good enough for me. I do take your point about the entire pop. benefiting from the BBC indirectly, though I'm not sure that the extent to which they do justifies its "public" funding.