Like rats desperately clambering to safety from a sinking ship, BBC bosses are trying their utmost to protect the guaranteed income afforded by the TV licence fee.
Earlier today it was the BBC Director General, Tony Hall, using the nepotistic hospitality of the Andrew Marr show to recite horror stories about how ordinary members of the public would end up paying more if the £145.50 annual telly tax was abolished.
Speaking on the show, Lord Hall said: "Our audiences, when you ask them, actually think that the case for the licence fee as a method of funding the BBC has gone up and has not gone down. That's really important.
"And they believe in a high quality BBC that's producing excellent programmes right across a broad range of genres."
Lord Hall dismissed the suggestion that the TV licence fee was anachronistic, saying that even Culture Secretary John Whittingdale - who has previously described the fee as "worse than the poll tax" - acknowledged it had ten years of life left in it.
Referring to the Culture Select Committee's recent report on the Future of the BBC, he continued: "Beyond that Andrew, you and I sitting here 10 years ago had no idea what an iPad was, had no idea about Netflix, had no idea about Spotify - I'll go along with the argument that's it got 10 years life in it.
"And then it (the report) went on to say what the licence fee has got to do is what the licence fee has continually done since it was first invented, which is to adapt to modernise, to change because - and this is the principle - by everybody paying something we all get great services for a lot less than if you went down a subscription model or some other route."
The BBC's Royal Charter expires on 31st December 2016 and the topic of funding will feature prominently during the process of Charter renewal.
7 comments:
He continued: "Beyond that Andrew, you and I sitting here 10 years ago had no idea what an iPad was, had no idea about Netflix, had no idea about Spotify - I'll go along with the argument that's it got 10 years life in it.
What on earth does that mean? Looks like the incongruent ramblings of a buffoon. The fact that 10% of court cases in England and Wales are TV Licence related with 70% of the defendants female should make this idiot consider the actuality of the situation. I did a straw poll in the pub last night (in Scotland right enough) and come the crunch no one I talked to had a TV Licence. It's becoming irrelevant in the digital age and Tony Hall trying to maintain it to fund the behemoth the BBC has become is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide.
"... ordinary members of the public would end up paying more if the £145.50 annual telly tax was abolished"
Which in otherwords says that as it stands, and in any new household tax based system, people who don't want to consume BBC content or live TV will end up subsidising those who do.
The BBC truly has delusions of relevance if it thinks it can justify that.
"... ordinary members of the public would end up paying more if the £145.50 annual telly tax was abolished"
if this was true they would do it in an instant. they would not miss an opportunity to get more out of us.
In previous research the BBC estimated that under a voluntary subscription service the maximum income for the BBC would be generated by increasing their charges by 30% although this wouldn't compensate fully for the number of households no longer paying them for the service. So overall they'd lose out under a subscription service.
The bbc / capita are like a cancer, slowly spread its death and destruction.
it has to be cut out for all British!
subscription is the only way " we are not slaves let us have a choice "
It's of no consequence to me how the BBC is funded, as long as they don't ask me to pay for it. Licence fee? Fine, I don't have a problem with that. Subscription? Fine, again, no problem. But tax? Certainly not.
I have never been an opponent of the TV licence. In fact, I think it's quite a good idea. If you've got to have state television (although that in itself is a question worth asking), you have to fund it somehow, but don't look at me for that money.
No, what I object to is the manner in which Capita (SORRY, of course I mean TV Licensing) constantly harasses non-customers. Licence, subscription, pay-per-view, phooey, I don't care, but Please Leave Me Alone.
"Our audiences, when you ask them, actually think that the case for the licence fee as a method of funding the BBC has gone up and has not gone down."
I am sure the Labour party can also show that the members who are now in the party are also more enthusiastic about the party and the leadership than ever before. Of course if you are not asking people who have stopped being your audiences / members if they like your output, you are bound to get a flattering assessment.
Post a Comment