Is it time to scrap the TV licence?

[Teddy Bear]

Is it time to scrap the TV licence?


The future of the BBC
The Economist (Jan 6)

“DEBATE has raged for years over whether the BBC should still be publicly financed, and specifically by a licence fee that is paid by all those with television sets. Many households, after all, now watch and listen to little of its output but almost all pay £131.50 a year for it.



“The BBC hates the idea of losing its licence fee. Rather than go commercial, its bosses plan to keep fighting for public financing for decades. What are the chances that the Government will decide that the BBC can fend for itself, taking away some or all of its public subsidy when the current charter runs out in 2016? “The rapid shift to digital TV makes the debate especially pressing. Set-top boxes can tell whether a household has paid for a channel or not. Soon it will be practical and easy for everyone to choose whether or not to subscribe to the BBC, or bits of it.

“Towards the end of digital switch-over, which will happen between 2008 and 2012, the Government will examine other ways to finance the BBC after 2016. The likeliest change is that the television service would become partly or wholly subscription- financed. Radio would take longer to wean off public money because most radio sets now in use do not have the necessary technology.”

www.economist.com

[Teddy Bear]

It's good to hear the media expressing expectation that the BBC might not automatically be getting their license fee the next time around.
Also, a company that gets less income in a particular year 'tightens its belt'. I'm willing to guarantee that the BBC staff will continue to squander their resources with inflated expense sheets on their ever expanding belt. I'd say the BBC quality would suffer, but given the poor quality at present, it would be hard to notice.

BBC must regain focus

Only an organisation as blissfully featherbedded as the BBC could view today's TV licence settlement as a grievous setback. The licence fee looks set to rise by three per cent this year and next, two per cent in each of the subsequent three years, and by less than two per cent in year six. How many commercial media companies enjoy such predictability? In historic terms, it is a tough settlement that severs the link with the Retail Price Index, and will lead to real-terms budget cuts for the first time in decades. But can anyone in the corporation argue with a straight face that there is no room for economies when guaranteed annual income currently stands at £3.1 billion?

The corporation's director-general, Mark Thompson, who had demanded a deal of inflation plus 1.8 per cent, has had his bluff called. He had appeared determined to continue the BBC's often irrational expansion, which has in recent years spawned ever more (barely watched) channels, a dazzling subsidised website, the rushed switch-over from analogue to digital – and arguably a smaller percentage of top-notch quality programming than at any time in recent history. Now the gravy train is slowing and some hard choices have to be made.

Doubtless the corporation will use the settlement to argue for more commercial activity, both on its overseas services and its website, to augment revenues. That would inflict unfair distortion on a highly competitive market and should be resisted. The BBC should instead embark on a rigorous reassessment of its remit and explain to the licence-fee payers precisely what its goals are. The focus must be on programmes, not empire building. This could well be the last

TV licence settlement. Given the speed of media evolution, it is hard to believe that Auntie will still be exacting licence fees as we approach the third decade of this century. It should use this collision with the real world to make itself fit for the future.