BBC
Posted by Edward Vaizey, MP for Wantage, at 17:14, Wed 14 June 2006:
There is a debate on the futre of the BBC next week in which I intend to speak. I would be extremely interested and grateful for your views. The first issue is the future of the licence fee - should it continue, or if not, how should we fund the BBC? Secondly, (my personal view), does the BBC now do too much, in effect crowding out the private sector? If you have any other thoughts, I would be very grateful.
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Brent Tapscott, 17:51, Wed 14 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Personally, I object to having to pay a licence fee, so my question would be - should we actually fund the BBC?. Why can't they operate in the same way as all other channels and take advertising?. Given that we have the licence fee, I certainly do not agree with great chunks of the fee going towards the digital rollout - the government instigated this (and will make money from it), so my licence fee should not be used to help elderly / hard up people to switch over as this should be the governments role.
Do the BBC do too much - I suppose the problem is that, having got the licence fee, they have to be (or are expected to be) all things to all men. They have an excellent News website - one of the best around I believe. I am not so sure about the private sector though (and this may be an argument for keeping the fee)- we have already seen much of the national sports transmission moved away from the BBC (because they cannot afford the costs), and now many people cannot see sport on TV. My father, for instance, 86 with both legs amputated, can no longer get to the local rugby ground, so his only option is watching rugby on TV and short of paying out for a Sky aerial (which he cannot afford), he gets to see little / no rugby.
Posted by Leonora Hill, 18:52, Wed 14 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think the BBC is very special and I'm willing to pay for it. I only have to go to the States and see the private sector and advertising at its very worst to realise that the BBC is in institution we should endeavour to preserve.
Posted by Philip Hutchinson, 23:02, Wed 14 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I share the view of Leonora Hill. The BBC provides outstanding value for money and is a potent and positive international representation of British valuues which should be cherished but carefully managed. I welcome its extension into new delivery modes from web cast to HDTV. Expansion should be contained by increasing the licence fee at or just below the increase necessary to cover inflation. Once lost we would never recover an institution like the BBC.
Posted by Jeremy Burnett Rae, 23:34, Wed 14 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree with Leonora Hill: the BBC provides a special function by effectively maintaining all commercial television standards. For example, we do not have to suffer commercial breaks every five minutes. Also I expect that the World Service does much more for British interests abroad than many expensive diplomats.
The BBC must maintain its position as technology advances from radio, via TV, the internet, and podcasts and into the future. You must continue to define and cost the basic services we require the BBC to provide and develop at what public expense, and should give them freedom to operate ancillary businesses on a fair commercial basis, noting the complaints of their still-profitable competitors.
I think Brent Tapscott provides his own answer - the BBC cannot be paid to be all things to all men. Sport TV might justify a certain public expense; you must decide that, but it certainly cannot be justified regardless of expense. (I would not expect a disability policy to make a subsidised sport TV service available to the housebound - perhaps many of the disabled might benefit more from mobility aids, or prefer films, or music)
The licence fee is simply an outmoded household tax, now that almost everyone receives broadcasts and anyone can watch TV on a mobile or TV card. I can see no more benefit in collecting it separately, and it should be abolished like dog licences (and Auntie paid out of general taxation). The historical accumulation of different rates, exemptions and complicated rules for black-and-white, monitors without a TV arial, students, grannies in multiple households, and multiple TVs, is useless extravagent bureaucracy.
Posted by Rob Harper, 07:50, Thu 15 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think the BBC does an important job of providing programming that commercial broadcasters may find less attractive, and should continue to do so. It makes sense for it to be funded publically. I would prefer to see the money coming from "real" taxation rather than from the license fee, but I worry that if this was the case, there might be a tendancy within government to steadily reduce funding in order to save money. As such the license fee seems to be a lesser evil, and one I am willing to put up with.
Posted by Julia West, 15:04, Thu 15 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I'm sorry to say i don't trust Governments in the future (of any complexion) to fund the BBC properly. And it must be funded - it is an excellent organisation. Radio 4 alone is worth the licence fee. So I see no choice but to retain the licence. Of course the Beeb must expand into new technologies, or it may cease to exist - my 20 year old record player is useless to me now! QED. The BBC has been encouraged to find other methods of funding, such as sales and expansion of its products, so that the licence fee can be kept at its current low (lets be honest) level. Yet as soon as it does so the private sector complains. Unless someone can come up with better ideas to support and retain the BBC we need to keep the status quo.
Posted by Amy Cope, 18:44, Thu 15 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree with Julia West's point. Radio 4 is worth the license fee! I think if the BBC keep up the quality of programmes then I don't mind paying.
Posted by John Ennew, 13:36, Sat 17 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I would happily pay more for the BBC. It is the only television I watch and I agree with every comment made about the appauling rubbish and endless advertising given out by the private sector. The BBC is an excellent avenue for British Culture around Europe and the rest of the world and I would like to see it increase its influence.
Posted by Tristan Webb, 14:37, Sat 17 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
Without the Licence Fee, many popular programs would inevitably close. Radio 4, for example, could never succeed in a commercial context - the adverts would switch people off in droves. As it stands, I don't care if the BBC crowds out the private sector or not. The quality of private programming is absolutely dire, and seems to be competing in a race-to-the-bottom in terms of quality.
Jeremy Burnett makes a good point about the value of the BBC in promoting Britain abroad. I am just coming back from teaching English in South Korea, a country where the US has enormous influence. Many of my students use the BBCs incomparable online English learning resources and as a result have become interested in England and its culture. The resources are not extravagant, but are of a quality that can't be found elsewhere.
I agree with Rob Harper that were the Licence Fee incorporated under general taxation, the government would surely abuse its position to bully, blackmail or squeeze the BBC into position. I therefore oppose scrapping the License Fee.