[Closed] BBC Licence fee.

errrm, you know BBC Worldwide isn't the actual BBC, don't you?

Why? We put in an investment, part of that generates a profit that then funds more. BBC worldwide is the worldwide part of the BBC not the UK part. It sells the worldwide distribution if things like Top Gear

That's what instant Google research gets you! 😳 Can't find any handy quick reference to the actual BBC profit record.

I wonder how much they make above and beyond the licence fee?

Blimey that's dropped. Good job it just subsidises toward the licence fee.

Nope. Do the maths - what does that work out at for each current licence in the UK (25 million of them)? But it sounds like John Whittingdale, the new culture secretary fella is hell bent on it so say hello to a BBC riddled with ads coming to a screen near you in the next 5 years.

The licence fee is a bargain.

It's worth it for iPlayer alone.

Can't find any handy quick reference to the actual BBC profit record.

I wonder how much they make above and beyond the licence fee?

(This again?)

Simple answer, no.

The £173.8m from BBC Worldwide is small beans compared to the £3,726m from the license fee. At the end of the 2014 year they have £154 surplus left over, down £3 million from 2013. So ditching the license fee would mean they'd have to find £3,572m just to make ends meet.

[img] [/img]
Source:

What do you think they do with that profit? Pay the shareholders? Perhaps they pay back into the BBC to make more stuff and to fund more of the specialist stuff that is not massively popular but valuable.

Well why can't they just do that without us paying extra for something they could afford to do themselves?

The op is Nigel Farage and I claim my £5...
😉

GrahamS - Member
(This again?)

Simple answer, no.

The £173.8m from BBC Worldwide is small beans compared to the £3,726m from the license fee. At the end of the 2014 year they have £154 surplus left over, down £3 million from 2013. So ditching the license fee would mean they'd have to find £3,572m just to make ends meet.

No arguing with the figures.

I agree.

Another nice infographic:

[img] [/img]
[url= http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2013-14/bbc_annualreport_201314_overview_bbcataglance.pdf ]Sauce[/url]

No arguing with the figures.

I agree.

Shortest STW debate evar! 😀

I agree.

Who are you and what have you done with Mr Woppit?

[img] [/img]

Is the BBC, with it's wealth of quality programming and web content, worth the license fee?

Yes.

Should it be a "commercial" enterprise, ala Sky, and be beholdent to its advertising revenue?

No.

Given I watch virtually nothing that isn't BBC or C4 (also publicly owned) I think the status quo is excellent.

We know what an ad funded BBC would look like because as mentioned we already have one - C4. It's not bad, but it's not as good as the Beeb.

However given the Tories are in Sky/Fox's pocket I assume they will be trying to end the high quality, free at the point of use BBC output to try and boost their friend's profit (on the basis that if BBC quality falls, rises in price or disappears then Sky doesn't look such a bad deal). And the quid pro quo will be that Sky will use its enhanced influence to try to support the Cameron project.

Time to abandon the licence fee?

Mr Murdochs terms and conditions for supporting the Tories and the Pied Piper has to be paid 😉

We know what an ad funded BBC would look like because as mentioned we already have one - C4. It's not bad, but it's not as good as the Beeb.

I reckon it would be worse than that - there has to be a finite amount of money all companies together are prepared to pay in advertising - another platform to advertise on surely means it would turn into a buyers market and commercial advertising slot prices would plummet, not just on the BBC but on the other competing networks too. I'd say it's in Murdoch's (and ITV's) interest for the BBC to remain licence fee funded.

The licence fee will be initially frozen and then scaled back and probably ultimately eradicated IMO

The BBC could be easily funded by advertising either partially or fully. I pay a licence fee and all I watch is the News/Newsnight and the occasional catch up programme for which you don't actually need a TV licence.

Funny how increases in VAT or other taxes are widely regarded as regressive yet the licence fee is fixed and £145 equals a 1% VAT rise on spending on £14,500.

Interesting. I watch little else than BBC output. The rest is mostly rubbish, in my opinion.

Even if it is on iPlayer, it still has to be made in the first place.

The BBC could be easily funded by advertising either partially or fully. I pay a licence fee and all I watch is the News/Newsnight and the occasional catch up programme for which you don't actually need a TV licence.

Is the BBC, with it's wealth of radio,quality TV and web content, worth the license fee?

[b]Yes[/b].

I forsee David Cameron's "One Nation"-ism finding it's first test when his new culture secretary starts in on the BBC.

Isn't "One Nationism" the principle behind a Reithian BBC?

do the same as Germany.
make it essentially a surcharge tax on the household.
those that like to think they are important and brag about not having a TV are the losers. those that watch get their money's worth.
and since it's a ringfenced surcharge, it's not the politicians that set decide how much they get from general taxation. collect it via council tax along with other surcharges.

sky will always complain, since they aren't a total monopoly on media in the UK yet.

I watch little else than BBC output. The rest is mostly rubbish, in my opinion

Today's BBC 1 listings

Homes Under the Hammer - Crap
Don't Get Done, Get Dom - Crap
Oxford Street Revealed - Crap
Bargain Hunt - Crap
BBC News; Weather - Crap
Doctors - Crap
Land Girls - Crap
Escape to the Country - Crap
Decimate - Crap
Flog It! - Crap
Pointless - Crap
BBC News - Crap
The One Show - Crap
EastEnders - Crap
Holby City - Crap
24 Hours in the Past - Crap

licence fee as it currently is is massively regressive, and the the weight of enforcement bears most heavily on the poorest.

No reason that many of the BBC's services could not be by paid subscription, especially iPlayer

the weight of enforcement bears most heavily on the poorest.

What does that actually mean?

Is this an "enforcement bear"?

[img] [/img]

Doesn't look that heavy.

Today's BBC 1 listings

Homes Under the Hammer - Crap
Don't Get Done, Get Dom - Crap
Oxford Street Revealed - Crap
Bargain Hunt - Crap
BBC News; Weather - Crap
Doctors - Crap
Land Girls - Crap
Escape to the Country - Crap
Decimate - Crap
Flog It! - Crap
Pointless - Crap
BBC News - Crap
The One Show - Crap
EastEnders - Crap
Holby City - Crap
24 Hours in the Past - Crap

Indeed 😀

the weight of enforcement bears most heavily on the poorest.

Do you mean they send letters to the people who don't pay what they are due to pay ?

Wolf Hall.
W1A
Peter Kay's car share.
Andrew Marr show.
Horizon.
Charlie Brooker.
Click.
Countryfile.
Daily Politics.
University challenge.
The Proms.
Wimbledon.
Question time.

Quick list. All good.

No, it means that of the 170 odd thousand people prosecuted, over 70% were women and the majority were classed as “vulnerable” (ie: out of work, on benefits, single parent or in receipt of ESA or DLA etc).

Genuine question - is live TV now considered an essential for all, i.e. should those [i]'out of work, on benefits, single parent or in receipt of ESA or DLA etc' [/i] be allowed to get it for free (either by right or not prosecuted) or a discounted rate? That's in the context of on demand and radio being free of licence need so you wouldn't be completely out of touch with the world. Is access to cash in the attic and strictly now considered a national right?

If the licence fee was added to council tax as per andytherocketeer's suggestion above (which does make sense) should those exempt from council tax also be exempt from paying the TV element too?

Nice idea

Apparently 10% of magistrate court cases are for non-payment of the license fee!

I think the solution to that is probably to make non-payment a civil offence, rather than a criminal one (i.e make it the same as any other bill).

Arguably the fee could be made more progressive as well, reduced or free to those below a certain income threshold. But in my opinion that is a different argument than saying it should be abolished altogether.

Can you see Sky making the equivalent of W1A?

With that level of (quite brutally at times) taking the rip out of themselves.

Genuine question - is live TV now considered an essential for all, i.e. should those 'out of work, on benefits, single parent or in receipt of ESA or DLA etc' be allowed to get it for free (either by right or not prosecuted) or a discounted rate?

[b]If[/b] the purpose of public service broadcasting is still to [i]"inform, educate and entertain"[/i] - then yes.

I dont want to lose the BBC and I don't like peopel weedling out of paying the fee because they dont watch live TV.

But there is not much on it I like anymore.

They should cover less football and do more alternative sports,
drop F1 and do something else.

Having spent the last 5 years watching the BBC pander to the Tories in a desperate attempt to be granted leniency I'd actually find it quite amusing to see them still get pumped.

Once I'd have been up in arms like many other at the thought of ads but to be honest I've withdrawn from most telly. The only must see's are on Sky Atlantic IMO and they are dwindling. Plenty of decent stuff on the beeb but nothing I'd be really bothered about never seeing again or that's going to have any real effect on my life.

They should just do what [i]I[/i] want them to do. 6music should only play the music [i]I[/i] want and not have annoying DJs. Then [i]I'd[/i] be happy.

Homes Under the Hammer - Crap

This thread lost all credibility at this point.

The Licence fee is a small price to pay for no adverts on BBC radio or TV - so NO.
Just because the politicians don't like what the Beeb says about them (it's funny how the right wingers when in power accuse it of left wing bias, whilst the left wing when in power accuse it of right wing bias) is not a good reason to stifle it.

to be honest I've withdrawn from most telly

BBC Radio? iPlayer? BBC website?

Just because the politicians don't like what the Beeb says about them (it's funny how the right wingers when in power accuse it of left wing bias, whilst the left wing when in power accuse it of right wing bias) is not a good reason to stifle it.

On the contrary, it's an excellent reason to keep it.

If it manages to annoy both ends of the political spectrum, while being regarded as fairly reasonable (ie it's not annoying both ends by being just nasty to humanity), then it's probably getting it about right.

If the purpose of public service broadcasting is still to "inform, educate and entertain" - then yes.

I think you'll find that's the STW forum

I don't like peopel weedling out of paying the fee because they dont watch live TV.

How is it wheedling out of something? you either have to pay or you don't.

BBC Radio? iPlayer? BBC website?

You don't need a TV licence to use any of them though, so their relevance to the licence debate is limited

BBC Radio? iPlayer? BBC website?

I wouldn't miss any of them if they went. I listen to commercial radio 90% of the time, use iplayer no more then any number of other players and can and do receive all the information I get from BBC websites from other places.

As much as I didn't want to give in to Murdock I surrendered to Sky years ago as they simply offer the best all round package. This renders most of the BBC add-ons surplus to requirements.

You don't need a TV licence to use any of them though, so their relevance to the licence debate is limited

I would happily pay my license fee for Radio 4 alone (I suspect my kids would also club together to ensure Deadly 60 and Horrible Histories remained unsullied by adverts).

Apparently 10% of magistrate court cases are for non-payment of the license fee!

I think the solution to that is probably to make non-payment a civil offence, rather than a criminal one (i.e make it the same as any other bill).

FWIW I had SKY and cancelled it, quite simply wasn't worth £720 pa. Most of what I watch now is via YouTube/Vimeo/PAYG streaming services, that plus the News. If I could avoid the BBC licence fee I would, for me £140 is definitely a very high price for what I watch.

@Gunz, had to dig this out 😀 😀

Jambalaya, afrad I can't open that at work but I hope it's a video of Steve Bagshaw getting excited over 'the most amazing snake bite' he's ever had.

I feel the same about the BBC as i do about the Royals... [url= https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=462773960473045 ]https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=462773960473045[/url]

Can you see Sky making the equivalent of W1A?

With that level of (quite brutally at times) taking the rip out of themselves.

Plus W1A was shit - it tried to capture the genius of People Like Us, but with all the wit and subtlety removed.

Has nothing been said about the cultural influence of the BBC on British culture?
How many programs inform, educate & entertain the whole of our society i.e. children and old people - or are we fading into some Septic led (and Sky/Fox TV supported) 'I'm alright Jack, e**** everyone else' mentality?

Has nothing been said about the cultural influence of the BBC on British culture?

Not to mention the rest of the world.

Thick of It
News
Sherlock
Dr Who
The Office
Edge of Darkness
State of Play
Blackadder
Bottom
Monty Python
The Day Today

to name but a few

CBeebies!

I'd prefer to pay the BBC for my telly then Rupert Murdoch

@gunz, no it's the Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch about the BBC licence fee, from about 1980 I saw it first time around 😐 Comedy Gold 🙂

I don't have a TV and rarely watch iPlayer (never live) and still pay the TV License fee as I think the BBC is well worth funding.....

You don't need a TV licence to use any of them though, so their relevance to the licence debate is limited

so how are they paid for?

By the people who need to have a license, and pay for a license.

By the people who need to have a license, and pay for a license.

No TV licence system no free content for the[s] scroungers[/s] TV licence averse*
🙂

*and those poor souls not fortunate enough to live in blighty.

I don't shop at Sainsburys and would be 100% against having to pay a 'Sainsburys fee' every year for the privilege of not shopping there. If i did decide to one day venture in to buy a tasty ready meal, i wouldn't expect to pay £145 for doing so - two or three pounds would be a fair price. And i'd hate to be considered a criminal for not wanting to pay for something i don't use. It's pretty ridiculous really

I don't think your analogy works Euro

or are we fading into some Septic led 'I'm alright Jack, e**** everyone else' mentality?

Based on the recent election result I'd say we've faded.

spot on GrahamS !! kids telly without adverts is just the best, and consistently high quality programmes as well

and BBC4

oh and by the way, Channel4 gets a slice of the Licence Fee too so don't get too excited about using them as an example of commercial quality 🙂

And i'd hate to be considered a criminal for not wanting to pay for something i don't use. It's pretty ridiculous really

If you dont use it you do not need to pay

I don't shop at Sainsburys and would be 100% against having to pay a 'Sainsburys fee' every year for the privilege of not shopping there.

It's much closer to a tax than a usage fee. So a better analogy is [i]"I don't get ill so why do I pay for the NHS?"[/i] or perhaps [i]"I'm not homeless why do I pay for people who are?"[/i]

(And if you think those are a good questions then the "Why did you vote Tory?" thread is [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-on-here-voting-tory-why ]over here[/url]) 😉

ceebeebies is worth it alone

that and radio4
radio 6
bbc4, sometimes bbc3
iplayer
the sky at night!

If you dont use it you do not need to pay

[i]You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.
[/i]

It doesn't mention BBC programmes only. I'm not against paying for telly, but my money doesn't go to the programmes/productuion companies that i actually watch (except MOTD as it's the only BBC programme that i watch). I can't see how that is fair, whichever way you look at it.

Bbc website is worth it alone cooking,education ect.

Put it behind a firewall and wait for all the people who don't pay right now start jumping up and down.

BBC is essentially the Ministry for Propaganda - This is not to say it hasn't made some wonderful stuff over the years but in the bigger picture I see a demise as a good thing ..

I think it is a bargain and people should fight for its protection. To destroy it would be a crime, especially to as part of a deal with Murdoch.

I think it is a bargain and people should fight for its protection. To destroy it would be a crime, especially to as part of a deal with Murdoch.

Spot on. Being able to watch or listen to entertainment or education for a) not a huge amount of money and b) not being bombarded with adverts is priceless.

I'm sure, like most large organisations there's areas and things that could be run better but that's not a reason to scrap it.

Someone earlier suggest a model like the Germans. That sounds like a good idea. Have the funding ring fenced and taken from a small rise in general taxation which then means it's not hitting the poor the hardest.

ditch everything on the BBC except the things I like!

(6music, radio 4, bbc2 and bbc4, just in case you were wondering)

wouldn't do it as ringfenced from general taxation, since ringfencing is nonsense and doesn't work, and is just a political manifesto.

but council tax is already collection of numerous levies for numerous authorities and agencies. stick tv licence there, and it's ringfenced in the sense that a fixed amount per household is to fund public tv/radio stations.

those on minimum wages and some with disability get a discount.

and you save all the admin of tv licensing, threatening people with "detector vans", and is probably cheaper.

Happily pay it for things like Peaky Blinders and Wolf Hall. Not a lot really is it

BBC is essentially the Ministry for Propaganda - This is not to say it hasn't made some wonderful stuff over the years but in the bigger picture I see a demise as a good thing ..

Leaving the way open for some nice unbias neutral telly like Sky, Fox or Russia Today ??

The most important thing about the BBC isn't the lack of adverts, it's the obligation it has to inform and educate.

This is why, even when it makes car crash reality TV, it also (usually) offers good insight about the situation from which we can learn. Bank of Mum and Dad was an example. Yes, we can all goggle at the dreadful behaviour, but it was fascinating to see the psychology underlying the behaviour.

The fact the BBC is so good raises the bar for the rest of the UK's TV output. If you don't agree just spend some time in the US. Between the blockbuster shows it's absolutely disgraceful. And about 40% adverts.