Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The bigger question in terms of subscriptions is the BBC's public service obligations. ITV also has a PSO (as do channel 4 and 5); you don't have to have a charter to be a public service broadcaster, but you do have to commit to certain levels of availability, which going behind a paywall is not compatible with.
So by proposing a subscription you're also proposing the BBC stops being a public service broadcaster. For an organisation whose entire business is geared towards universal public service broadcasting the very idea is absurd. In fact the only reason 'force it to charge a subscription!' is ever advanced as an argument is because people see the licence fee and draw a shallow and false equivalence between it, and subscription. In the context of universal public service broadcasting the idea simply isn't compatible at all.
|
Public service obligations! Any terrestrial channel can take on such responsibilities, and would be willing to do so if the cash went with it.
The BBC could go behind a paywall for those who wanted a premium choice and were prepared to pay for it, but also offer a free service for those who did not want that.
Other than regional news programmes and religious programmes (both currently offered by ITV), I am not entirely sure what these public services obligations obligations are. Would you miss them (if you do know what they are)? I’m sure that such programmes are available from other content providers.