VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[heero_yuy]

Maybe a small per property charge for the basic PSBR requirement ( Saturday evening ratings battles and deadenders Eastenders is not PSBR ) and radio with the rest of the froth subscription only.

To just charge everybody no matter how little the BBC output is relevent to them is still a non-starter in my view as it's no different to now.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Maybe a small per property charge for the basic PSBR requirement ( Saturday evening ratings battles and deadenders Eastenders is not PSBR ) and radio with the rest of the froth subscription only.

To just charge everybody no matter how little the BBC output is relevent to them is still a non-starter in my view as it's no different to now.

The thing is, there is a very vocal minority that don't want to pay anything to the BBC because they don't watch or listen to their programmes. I think the Government need to listen to them.

Enabling the public to subscribe or not subscribe will probably result in most people signing up in the end, and all the stressing about BBC funding will be gone overnight.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thing is, there is a very vocal minority that don't want to pay anything to the BBC because they don't watch or listen to their programmes. I think the Government need to listen to them.

Enabling the public to subscribe or not subscribe will probably result in most people signing up in the end, and all the stressing about BBC funding will be gone overnight.

I think that's probably true though why they won't accept it is beyond me. Freeview boxes and TV's already have a conditional access card slot in them (CI) for adult channel and sports subscribers so even the hardware is there to implement it properly. $ky and VM already have things like a Disney add-on so having the BBC as an add on wouldn't be an issue either Then those that choose not to pay cannot get BBC content.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Interestingly, they are suggesting a possible levy payable by everyone to entitle them to receive any broadcast.

This really makes me laugh. The case put by many against the licence fee, is that they don't use any BBC services, so shouldn't have to pay. People who don't have equipment with tuners in currently can opt out.

This levy will force everyone to pay, whether they don't have tuners or don't use BBC services.


My general thoughts though; the BBC is one of the most respected broadcasters in the world at a bargain monthly fee, and a bunch of people, all of whom, can easily afford pay TV services want to mess with it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't monitor BBC spending. Rupert must be doing a dance right now.

---------- Post added at 15:08 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thing is, there is a very vocal minority that don't want to pay anything to the BBC because they don't watch or listen to their programmes. I think the Government need to listen to them.

.

And the key word here is minority.


BTW OB, when are you going to give us the statistics for those who object to the licence fee?

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This is the latest on the BBC licence fee, confirming that its continuation is time limited, but that there may be a temporary reprieve. I think, however, this depends on what shape the next Government takes.

Although there are potentially different solutions to the replacement of the licence fee, I do believe that the preferred answer is likely to lie in a subscription based offer. Further savings would result from reducing or abolishing broadcast TV, in favour of VOD and streaming.

Interestingly, they are suggesting a possible levy payable by everyone to entitle them to receive any broadcast rather than a subscription. This will not satisfy those who resent paying the licence fee, which is why I think a Government of a certain complexion won't like that idea.

I know that withdrawing broadcast TV won't please everyone, but I am pretty sure this is the way we are going. The only question for me is how long it will take to get there. Notice that the Committee is talking also about a 10 year period, which I think is do-able if extended to withdrawing broadcast TV. However, my guess is that a 20 year period is more likely politically, given the need to win the public over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659

No long-term future for BBC licence fee, MPs say

The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said.

The fee is "becoming harder and harder to justify" given changes in the media, according to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead.

The BBC said it agreed the licence fee needed to be modernised.

The select committee's proposals were made in a new report about the future of the BBC.

Catch-up changes

Committee chairman John Whittingdale said: "In the short term, there appears to be no realistic alternative to the licence fee, but that model is becoming harder and harder to justify and sustain."

In light of changing technology and audience habits, the committee said "we do not see a long-term future for the licence fee in its current form".

Any "profound changes" - such as abolishing the licence fee - should not be rushed, the report said. But it did say the BBC "must prepare for the possibility of a change in the 2020s.

"We recommend that as a minimum the licence fee must be amended to cover catch-up television as soon as possible."

It should also no longer be a criminal offence to avoid paying the licence fee, the report said.

The planned BBC One +1 channel does not represent "public service value", the committee said.

The licence fee currently costs £145.50 per year for every household where people watch or record live TV.

A TV licence is not required to watch catch-up TV, using services such as the BBC iPlayer.

One option to replace the licence fee would be to make some BBC services available by subscription.

But the committee said choosing which programmes remained available subscription-free would require careful thought.

The best alternative to the licence fee, the report concluded, would be a compulsory broadcasting levy paid by all households, regardless of whether they watch TV, or how they watch.

The BBC's director of strategy James Purnell, said it was "a very serious and important report".

He said: "They are saying the licence fee should continue for the next years and think the BBC should continue for the next 10 years when its comes up for charter renewal after the election.

"We actually agree with them that the licence fee should be modernised. We have said this should extend to catch-up services, when people are watching catch-up for example on their tablets.

"They have come up with a more radical solution with a broadcast levy where every household would pay."

Such a system was introduced in Germany in 2013 and would do away with the need to detect and prosecute those who avoid buying a TV licence, the committee said.

Seriously OB, I read this report as saying subscription based programmes will prove problematic and that the other option is to charge everyone in the country. They also say that a new levy may be introduced but will called something different. I seem to recall some tax in the 80s changing its name to council tax, and it not changing a thing, we still pay the same tax. So why should this be any different? Rest assured very little will change. Like PB says, the bbc will need to tighten their belts. I can see people paying a little less a year, but everyone in the country having to pay for it.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Seriously OB, I read this report as saying subscription based programmes will prove problematic and that the other option is to charge everyone in the country. They also say that a new levy may be introduced but will called something different. I seem to recall some tax in the 80s changing its name to council tax, and it not changing a thing, we still pay the same tax. So why should this be any different? Rest assured very little will change. Like PB says, the bbc will need to tighten their belts. I can see people paying a little less a year, but everyone in the country having to pay for it.

Including those that don't have a tv

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Including those that don't have a tv

Yup, charging everyone was one of the two options presented in the link OB posted. I imagine it is the easier of the two options. Unfair on those who don't watch TV, but where in life is anything truly fair?

[andy_m]

I'm not in favour of a system whereby people who don't access BBC services have to pay for them. We have that now and it's manifestly unfair. I can't see the argument that £12 a month is a bargain, either, when it adds approx. 20% to my monthly telly bill, but accounts for considerably less than 20% of my viewing . But, if every household had to pay a levy this would surely mean a reduction in monthly outgoings for those households (the majority) who currently pay the licence fee, so I can see how this idea might gain traction.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes! Well it is simple, just tack the charge on to the council tax!

Common sense points to a subscription based model that people can choose to sign up to but common sense does not always win the day, regrettably!

That is exactly what will happen, not at the next charter review, but probably at the one after.

The theory is that TV has an important social function above and beyond the provision of entertainment. That is the justification for funding a large chunk of it via what is, effectively, a tax.

Throughout this thread you have argued that the Internet will result in the end of linear broadcast TV. I maintain that you are wrong; linear broadcast is simple for the provider and the consumer and remains the best means of attracting a mass audience.

What the Internet will do, however, is make it increasingly difficult for the BBC to continue to collect sufficient licence fees on the basis of charging people who watch TV as broadcast, not because too few people are watching linear broadcast, but because it is becoming too easy to evade detection. The only viable alternative, if the public service broadcast model is to be preserved, is for a precept on local tax. This is how police and fire authorities collect their funds.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Seriously OB, I read this report as saying subscription based programmes will prove problematic and that the other option is to charge everyone in the country. They also say that a new levy may be introduced but will called something different. I seem to recall some tax in the 80s changing its name to council tax, and it not changing a thing, we still pay the same tax. So why should this be any different? Rest assured very little will change. Like PB says, the bbc will need to tighten their belts. I can see people paying a little less a year, but everyone in the country having to pay for it.

There are two problems with the licence fee. One is the price of the TV licence, which many do think is too high given the waste that goes on at the BBC, and the other is who pays?

I don't think either of these questions will go away until they are dealt with properly. I agree that the temptation will be to go with the easiest options, but the longer this is put off, the angrier people will be.

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

This really makes me laugh. The case put by many against the licence fee, is that they don't use any BBC services, so shouldn't have to pay. People who don't have equipment with tuners in currently can opt out.

This levy will force everyone to pay, whether they don't have tuners or don't use BBC services.


My general thoughts though; the BBC is one of the most respected broadcasters in the world at a bargain monthly fee, and a bunch of people, all of whom, can easily afford pay TV services want to mess with it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't monitor BBC spending. Rupert must be doing a dance right now.

---------- Post added at 15:08 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------



And the key word here is minority.


BTW OB, when are you going to give us the statistics for those who object to the licence fee?

You are quite right, PB, it is a minority. I'm afraid I don't have the figures, but we are reading about these protests all the time nowadays.

Frankly, they do have a point. The BBC collect more money than they know what to do with and the stories of profligacy are infuriating those who previously just put up with it. I agree that if you don't watch the BBC TV or radio programmes (even via the computer), then you shouldn't have to pay.

However, none of us I think want to see a reduction in programme quality. The BBC should be concentrating on that and not on emulating the commercial broadcasting channels.

FWIW, I suspect that come the day the licence fee is swapped for a precept on council tax, a mechanism will also be introduced whereby any of the PSBs can bid for a portion of it. I'd go so far as to say that the BBC itself will lose the right to be the collecting authority and a third party, possibly Ofcom, will be the precepting authority, handing over (I speculate) 75% of what it collects to the BBC and inviting bids for the rest.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

That is exactly what will happen, not at the next charter review, but probably at the one after.

The theory is that TV has an important social function above and beyond the provision of entertainment. That is the justification for funding a large chunk of it via what is, effectively, a tax.

Throughout this thread you have argued that the Internet will result in the end of linear broadcast TV. I maintain that you are wrong; linear broadcast is simple for the provider and the consumer and remains the best means of attracting a mass audience.

What the Internet will do, however, is make it increasingly difficult for the BBC to continue to collect sufficient licence fees on the basis of charging people who watch TV as broadcast, not because too few people are watching linear broadcast, but because it is becoming too easy to evade detection. The only viable alternative, if the public service broadcast model is to be preserved, is for a precept on local tax. This is how police and fire authorities collect their funds.

But Chris, we all rely on the police and fire authorities. We don't all watch or listen to BBC output, and so the licence fee or any kind of universal tax is manifestly unfair.

I do appreciate your doubts about my theory that linear channels are ultimately doomed. However, the industry itself is moving to VOD and streaming and there will come a tipping point where not enough people are watching the linear channels to support the existing model based on advertising.

While advertising will continue to play a part without the linear channels, it will be a much smaller part of a channel's income, and so there will be less duplication with a bigger focus on subscriptions.

You have mentioned the dreamy way in which some people watch TV now, by turning it on and just watching whatever is thrown at them. Convenient that may be, but it will not be sustainable financially to carry on broadcasting the same way if the advertisers are no longer willing to stump up. Just look at what is happening. The drift to alternative methods of watching programmes will continue, and at a faster pace, over the coming years.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But Chris, we all rely on the police and fire authorities. We don't all watch or listen to BBC output, and so the licence fee or any kind of universal tax is manifestly unfair.

I'm aware of the argument against the practice of treating public service broadcast as socially necessary, however that argument is normally - fallaciously - based on personal usage, rather than availability.

If you never have children, you will never make use of the schools you pay for. However there is a wider social need for schools, which benefits you indirectly. Likewise you pay for the fire authority not because you use it, but because one day you might do. It is, howevever, far more likely that you never will.

The BBC is a guarantor of breadth of programming, quality of programming, and universal availability of programming. You may never personally tune in to any of its services, but the very fact of its existence sets parameters for the UK TV industry, which you benefit from.

If you think this is nonsense, spend some time watching TV in the USA. What we get here is, I promise you, a highly distilled and very small sample of it's output, most of which is shockingly bad.

I do appreciate your doubts about my theory that linear channels are ultimately doomed. However, the industry itself is moving to VOD and streaming and there will come a tipping point where not enough people are watching the linear channels to support the existing model based on advertising.

The industry is not moving to VOD and streaming. It, led in the UK by the BBC, is using those technologies to broaden its reach. It is not a case of either/or.

While advertising will continue to play a part without the linear channels, it will be a much smaller part of a channel's income, and so there will be less duplication with a bigger focus on subscriptions.

It's about time you produced some links to back up these assertions you keep making.

Back in the real world, 50% of British homes still, after all these years, do not pay anything for their home entertainment except for their TV licence.

If you have some evidence of a supposed shift in attitudes towards subscription-based TV, let's have it.

You have mentioned the dreamy way in which some people watch TV now, by turning it on and just watching whatever is thrown at them. Convenient that may be, but it will not be sustainable financially to carry on broadcasting the same way if the advertisers are no longer willing to stump up. Just look at what is happening. The drift to alternative methods of watching programmes will continue, and at a faster pace, over the coming years.

Dreamy? You really don't have much of a concept of life beyond your own living room, do you ...

[OLD BOY]

Chris, you may wish to take a look at this, which appears to support my view in respect of linear channels.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/cable-sa...evision/224350

I do, however, agree with the point you make about quality of programming and your comparison with the United States. But whether this justifies making everyone pay for something they don't want, that is debatable.

I also agree that many people won't like a move to subscription tv, but there is no reason why they need to pay any more than they do now for the licence fee if this is abolished.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

the TV licence, which many do think is too high

You are quite right, PB, it is a minority

Give us the figures OB, and that will settle it.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

If you never have children, you will never make use of the schools you pay for. However there is a wider social need for schools, which benefits you indirectly. Likewise you pay for the fire authority not because you use it, but because one day you might do. It is, howevever, far more likely that you never will.

The BBC is a guarantor of breadth of programming, quality of programming, and universal availability of programming. You may never personally tune in to any of its services, but the very fact of its existence sets parameters for the UK TV industry, which you benefit from.

If you think this is nonsense, spend some time watching TV in the USA. What we get here is, I promise you, a highly distilled and very small sample of it's output, most of which is shockingly bad.

.

Spot on

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I also agree that many people won't like a move to subscription tv, but there is no reason why they need to pay any more than they do now for the licence fee if this is abolished.

Could you please explain the costing's to support this claim?