BrianH
At the Start
The television licence fee is in the news again and much of the printed media is yet again up in arms about the unfairness of it. Of course, those newspapers who rail against the BBC whenever they can nearly all have a vested interest in so doing as they own, part-own or are sister companies to those who own competitors of the BBC.
So let's look at just a few facts. Firstly the much vaunted "£180 licence". The BBC is asking for a funding settlement of inflation (RPI) plus 2.3% annually between 2007 and 2013, which would see the licence fee rise from the current £126.50 per household to £150.50. However, assuming an annual RPI of 2.5% - the Bank of England's target figure - licence fee payers would actually be paying £176.46 by 2013. So the £180 licence is not that far wrong, though editors, like politicians, can be selective in how they present figures. In other instances you would have seen this quoted as "£150 at today's prices". So the figure of £180 is deliberately intended to frighten people, and makes as little sense as marvelling that a semi-detached in London cost £2,000 in 1960. Was that cheap or dear? Who knows?
But let's not haggle over the price - we're nearly all seekers after value on here so let's look for what value, if any, we get from the licence fee.
Firstly, for around £10 a month there is BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, New 24, BBC Parliament, CBBC, CBeebies, Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, Radio 5Live, Radio 6Music, Radio 7, BBC World Service, regional TV studios, regional radio stations - including national channels for wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, bbc.co.uk, and no adverts. That doesn't look too bad for me and to those who say "but I don't watch or listen to most of those" I'd ask whether they have ever watched most of the 120 channels or so they get from cable or satellite. I know I haven't.
BBC radio costs £600m a year and is almost universally regarded as good value for money. But to judge from the hostile reaction that the BBC's bid has triggered (as mentioned above, mostly from the usual suspects, many of whom are the BBC's competitors), there are severe doubts about whether the £2,300m spent last year on BBC television represented good value for money.
Look at it this way. The cost of the BBC is 23% of the total cost of all television services transmitted in the UK. Yet BBC television wins 37% of the total television audience. So the consumer is paying much less per hour for the BBC than for other types of television. True, this includes advertising in the overall cost of commercial television. Since advertising appears "free" to the consumer, perhaps it should be excluded. But nothing is "free", least of all advertising.
But even if we look only at subscription charges, the BBC offers good value. For each 1% of audience share it wins, the BBC costs £62m a year. Subscription services, mostly dispensed by the Sky platform, cost viewers £156m per point of audience share - over 150% more expensive than the BBC.
I am sure that there is someone reading this desperate to point out that people pay voluntarily for subscription channels, whereas they are forced to pay for the BBC. That is true, but surveys have directly asked people how much they would be willing to pay for the BBC's services, if they were not forced to do so through the licence fee. Inconveniently for the BBC's commercial enemies, they would on average pay at least one fifth more than they actually do pay each year.
This leaves the last, and only valid, argument against the licence fee. Even though most people would voluntarily pay a lot more for the BBC than the cost of the licence fee, there are about 7m households in the UK who would not. Forget the fact that many of those who "never watch BBC" can quote "The Office" and "Little Britain" along with the rest of us, this minority would gain if the BBC became a subscription service. But the other 16m households would lose. And that, as even a politician could confirm, is rather a large majority.
Finally, there is the cost of digitalisation. This, the BBC argues, is a major contributor to the need for above inflation increases in the licence fee. It's the government who want us all to be digital (in my opinion a correct decision) and they have asked the BBC to take charge of the project. All the commercial broadcasters, both television and radio, will benefit but are not contributing financially. So, it could be argued that part of the licence fee is a tax, a proportion of which is being used to subsidise private enterprise. But surely not under Mr Tony's New Labour?
So let's look at just a few facts. Firstly the much vaunted "£180 licence". The BBC is asking for a funding settlement of inflation (RPI) plus 2.3% annually between 2007 and 2013, which would see the licence fee rise from the current £126.50 per household to £150.50. However, assuming an annual RPI of 2.5% - the Bank of England's target figure - licence fee payers would actually be paying £176.46 by 2013. So the £180 licence is not that far wrong, though editors, like politicians, can be selective in how they present figures. In other instances you would have seen this quoted as "£150 at today's prices". So the figure of £180 is deliberately intended to frighten people, and makes as little sense as marvelling that a semi-detached in London cost £2,000 in 1960. Was that cheap or dear? Who knows?
But let's not haggle over the price - we're nearly all seekers after value on here so let's look for what value, if any, we get from the licence fee.
Firstly, for around £10 a month there is BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, New 24, BBC Parliament, CBBC, CBeebies, Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, Radio 5Live, Radio 6Music, Radio 7, BBC World Service, regional TV studios, regional radio stations - including national channels for wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, bbc.co.uk, and no adverts. That doesn't look too bad for me and to those who say "but I don't watch or listen to most of those" I'd ask whether they have ever watched most of the 120 channels or so they get from cable or satellite. I know I haven't.
BBC radio costs £600m a year and is almost universally regarded as good value for money. But to judge from the hostile reaction that the BBC's bid has triggered (as mentioned above, mostly from the usual suspects, many of whom are the BBC's competitors), there are severe doubts about whether the £2,300m spent last year on BBC television represented good value for money.
Look at it this way. The cost of the BBC is 23% of the total cost of all television services transmitted in the UK. Yet BBC television wins 37% of the total television audience. So the consumer is paying much less per hour for the BBC than for other types of television. True, this includes advertising in the overall cost of commercial television. Since advertising appears "free" to the consumer, perhaps it should be excluded. But nothing is "free", least of all advertising.
But even if we look only at subscription charges, the BBC offers good value. For each 1% of audience share it wins, the BBC costs £62m a year. Subscription services, mostly dispensed by the Sky platform, cost viewers £156m per point of audience share - over 150% more expensive than the BBC.
I am sure that there is someone reading this desperate to point out that people pay voluntarily for subscription channels, whereas they are forced to pay for the BBC. That is true, but surveys have directly asked people how much they would be willing to pay for the BBC's services, if they were not forced to do so through the licence fee. Inconveniently for the BBC's commercial enemies, they would on average pay at least one fifth more than they actually do pay each year.
This leaves the last, and only valid, argument against the licence fee. Even though most people would voluntarily pay a lot more for the BBC than the cost of the licence fee, there are about 7m households in the UK who would not. Forget the fact that many of those who "never watch BBC" can quote "The Office" and "Little Britain" along with the rest of us, this minority would gain if the BBC became a subscription service. But the other 16m households would lose. And that, as even a politician could confirm, is rather a large majority.
Finally, there is the cost of digitalisation. This, the BBC argues, is a major contributor to the need for above inflation increases in the licence fee. It's the government who want us all to be digital (in my opinion a correct decision) and they have asked the BBC to take charge of the project. All the commercial broadcasters, both television and radio, will benefit but are not contributing financially. So, it could be argued that part of the licence fee is a tax, a proportion of which is being used to subsidise private enterprise. But surely not under Mr Tony's New Labour?
.
VEN yes I certainly agree with both your postings, I myself am far from ante BBC, when I highlighted the MOTD programme that was but an example!! off the top of my head! I never chose sport to oppose sport, its as I have said but an example!! but has you and Brian have stated they are over run with what I myself would call/term as jobs for the boys & girls in a lot of the areas....
