The BBC charter renewal process begins

These posts were split out of the Netflix/streaming services thread. Please continue discussion about the TV licence and the BBC Royal Charter renewal process here.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As things stand, it’s far better value than the TV licence though.

A massive global news operation, six national radio stations, 40 stations serving the regions and nations, 8 national tv channels with a legal obligation to serve the broadest possible range of interests, and the ability to produce some of the most watched content on British TV, live, in house, week after week for months at a time* ... I’m sorry but you’re talking out of your hat. I’m a big Netflix fan and I watch a lot of it, but it doesn’t come close to the depth and breadth of service funded by the tv licence. As per, you’re projecting your own particular needs and tastes onto the population at large. Just because it works for OLD BOY, it doesn’t mean it works for everyone.

*Strictly Come Dancing, in case you were wondering

[johnathome]

It all depends on the individual though.

The only time I listen to BBC radio is Ken Bruce Popmaster, the rest is commercial stations.

I also probably watch about 4 hours a week of TV, don't watch BBC news.

That absolutely isn't worth £13 a month to me.

If I paid that for a streaming service and used it that little, it would have been cancelled already.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

A massive global news operation, six national radio stations, 40 stations serving the regions and nations, 8 national tv channels with a legal obligation to serve the broadest possible range of interests, and the ability to produce some of the most watched content on British TV, live, in house, week after week for months at a time* ... I’m sorry but you’re talking out of your hat. I’m a big Netflix fan and I watch a lot of it, but it doesn’t come close to the depth and breadth of service funded by the tv licence. As per, you’re projecting your own particular needs and tastes onto the population at large. Just because it works for OLD BOY, it doesn’t mean it works for everyone.

*Strictly Come Dancing, in case you were wondering

I can watch Sky News, ITV News or any number of other news channels, and more are coming. ITV News does regional news. Sky, Discovery and increasingly, the streamers do documentaries, nature, music and arts programmes, etc. By the ‘most watched content’ I presume you are referring to repeats, one of the principal complaints made against the BBC.

If people want to watch BBC services they can pay for it, but don’t expect those who don’t want it to pay for it. Maybe they are trying to do too much, but they have managed to annoy a lot of people in recent times. They are wasteful with the considerable budgets they are given and they are getting far too ‘politically correct’ for my liking - I know I am not alone in thinking that.

A subscription model would sort all of this out.

How would you compel a private company to operate a subscription model?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you are talking about the BBC, simply abolish the licence fee.

So that then leaves them in the same position as ITV - with a lot of very valuable screen time to sell to advertisers.

Again, I ask: how do you compel them to adopt a subscription model, which is what you have repeatedly suggested they should do?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

So that then leaves them in the same position as ITV - with a lot of very valuable screen time to sell to advertisers.

Again, I ask: how do you compel them to adopt a subscription model, which is what you have repeatedly suggested they should do?

And the commercial broadcasters don't want the BBC to carry advertising as it would suck a lot of ad revenue from them.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

So that then leaves them in the same position as ITV - with a lot of very valuable screen time to sell to advertisers.

Again, I ask: how do you compel them to adopt a subscription model, which is what you have repeatedly suggested they should do?

I assume that what you are asking in an oblique fashion is why would they not decide to offer commercial TV with advertisements?

Well, of course they could do, but the Beeb have an aversion to advertising, don’t they (unless it’s to advertise their own programmes and services)? To my mind, they should offer both.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I assume that what you are asking in an oblique fashion is why would they not decide to offer commercial TV with advertisements?

Well, of course they could do, but the Beeb have an aversion to advertising, don’t they (unless it’s to advertise their own programmes and services)? To my mind, they should offer both.

The BBC is forbidden by the terms of its charter to advertise anything on any of its public service channels. It has no aversion; it simply acts within the law.

It advertises exactly the same as anyone else where it operates commercially - as you can see if you tune in to Alibi, Dave, Drama, Eden, Gold, Yesterday or W. All of these are operated by UKTV, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Studios.

You might also have noticed that the trend over the last few years has been to get all of these channels off subscription and into free-to-air broadcast on all platforms.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

And the commercial broadcasters don't want the BBC to carry advertising as it would suck a lot of ad revenue from them.

Yes, well the commercial broadcasters like to call the shots. They can’t have it all their own way. They don’t want the BBC to have the advantage of the guaranteed income from the licence fee but if that stops and they go commercial, they don’t want that either.

Cake and eat it?

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The BBC is forbidden by the terms of its charter to advertise anything on any of its public service channels. It has no aversion; it simply acts within the law.

It advertises exactly the same as anyone else where it operates commercially - as you can see if you tune in to Alibi, Dave, Drama, Eden, Gold, Yesterday or W. All of these are operated by UKTV, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Studios.

If the licence fee is abolished, then they will have to amend the charter, won’t they? Why is that so insurmountable?

If that’s what you think, I’m not sure what you were getting at in your last post (#8191).

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, well the commercial broadcasters like to call the shots. They can’t have it all their own way. They don’t want the BBC to have the advantage of the guaranteed income from the licence fee but if that stops and they go commercial, they don’t want that either.

Cake and eat it?

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------



If the licence fee is abolished, then they will have to amend the charter, won’t they? Why is that so insurmountable?

If that’s what you think, I’m not sure what you were getting at in your last post.

You're getting things backwards.

The BBC's Royal Charter is what enables the licence fee. You can't abolish the fee and then amend the charter to reflect that. You amend or abolish the charter, in order to abolish the fee.

In fact, the primary purpose of the charter is to enable the licence fee system. Otherwise the BBC could simply operate under exactly the same regulatory framework that governs ITV etc. So in practice if you intended to abolish the licence fee the royal charter would probably go at the same time.

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

You're getting things backwards.

The BBC's Royal Charter is what enables the licence fee. You can't abolish the fee and then amend the charter to reflect that. You amend or abolish the charter, in order to abolish the fee.

In fact, the primary purpose of the charter is to enable the licence fee system. Otherwise the BBC could simply operate under exactly the same regulatory framework that governs ITV etc. So in practice if you intended to abolish the licence fee the royal charter would probably go at the same time.

I am sure you are right. So they amend the charter and abolish the licence fee. It is not an insurmountable problem. To wit, you have resolved it yourself.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am sure you are right. So they amend the charter and abolish the licence fee. It is not an insurmountable problem. To wit, you have resolved it yourself.

Monty Python - how to solve World Peace...

[OLD BOY]

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.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

l would not say ITV news programmes are very regional as such given its 120 plus miles away from where we live wherever BBC South West regional HQ is just down the road..

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

So, this is the point in the argument where you profess to know nought of such things, and therefore their importance is suspect.

There’s clearly little point in trying to discuss this with you - the entire British tv broadcasting system is based on the concept of public service broadcasting. It affects everything done by all the BBC’s TV channels, as well as the channel 3 broadcaster (ITV1, STV etc), Channel 4, S4C and Five, and all broadcast platforms whether or not they are owned by the public service broadcasters.

It is so fundamental to the discussion you’re trying to take part in, that if you really are “not entirely sure”, nothing you say can possibly carry any weight. This is laughable. And no, I’m not going to prove I do know by answering your thinly-veiled attempt to get me to do your homework for you.

Opinions are like erseholes, OB. Everybody has one but sometimes they’re full of *. On the off-chance that you’re interested in making an interesting contribution to a discussion rather than fancying yourself as an armchair expert, you could start your research with the very basic information here:

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+i...United+Kingdom