Cuts to licence fee - any clever types around?

[ReasonableDoubt]

I signed a random petition this morning expressing concern over the proposed cuts to the licence fee.

Quick disclaimer: I do feel that the license fee is very high and I would welcome genuine debate on this given the current economic climate.

My concern is that the Tories are using the economic recession as a means of reducing the power and scope of the BBC by stealth (just like they are using public sector cuts to introduce privatisation of areas of the public sector by stealth...but that's another matter).

So, anyway - signed a random petition with model letter I just had to sign which was then forwarded to my local MP. He replied with a weak two liner, saying that the BBC had to be more careful with public money and that there is no evidence to suggest that the drive to do this was linked to Murdoch-owned press etc etc.

I replied briefly refuting his claims. I have a feeling this is going to become a bit of a back-and-forth jobby!

But I need more ammunition.

BUT - I am jumping between doing this, writing my dissertation and doing various other important things today. Anyone got any robust defences of the BBC/attacks on the Tory anti-BBC agenda they can churn out for me? TIA

To be honest, I think the BBC have anticipated this situation for years. Licence fees are not very 'free market' and governments of every colour always think the BBC is against them! (Remember Alistair Campbell and the 'sexed up' dossier?) So, in preparation, the Beeb has been breaking off various operational chunks and turning them into independent entities, the commercial arm of the BBC is more active at bringing in overseas revenue from programmes and formats, they're being seen to 'do their bit' in terms of reducing salaries and production costs, moving to cheaper locations (Cardiff, Salford), leading the field in technology and a host of other measures to make them less reliant on the licence fee as their income source.

Strip it to the bone of pure public service TV and radio and make it free.

The cost cutting needs to be deep and real, not just tinkering at the edges with a bit of commercialisation.

Far to many of the presenters you see are paid far too much on the BBC. However, on top of that some have their own production companies and the programme you are watching (that they are presenting) was made by their company. The published salary they get is high but nothing compared to the profits in their own production company handed to them by the BBC.

The BBC needs to be cut back to allow private sector TV and radio to flourish. It also needs to be free to watch TV.

BeenBeta - do you really think if the BBC is 'stripped back', that private sector TV and radio will take over, offering free services? I don't think so at all. Murdoch wants to charge for all his services. We will find ourselves in a situation where all media outlets are run for profit. Dangerous, in my opinion.

I don't want free Fox News, anyway! I want BBC news, which at least makes some attempt to adhere to proper journalistic ethics.

"The BBC needs to be cut back to allow private sector TV and radio to flourish. It also needs to be free to watch TV."

I poory expressed what I meant.

The right to watch TV should be free. The TV licence is a tax that falls especially hard on poorer people. I want people to be able to watch Freeview and FreeSat truely for free.

The number of women in prison for not paying their TV licence is very high - while pensioners over 75 get it for free an dthose in residential care over 60 ay only £7.50. That is not right. It should be free for everyone and especially students and those on benefits and low pay.

If people want to pay for Sky that is up to them but not compulsory if there is Free to Air TV on a PBS and other commercial formats.

The BBC unfairly competes against other commercial free to air TV stations and drives up pay across the industry to ludicrous levels. It has nearly killed commercial radio.

BBC news (£61m), documentaries (£?), and Cbeebies (£26m) do not collectively amount to very much out of a total spend of billions.

BBC spends £100m on sports, £100m on Radio 1 and 2, £72m on Radio 5, none of which need to be funded out general taxtion.

Why do they need 4 channels?

well there is S4C, which receives £94m a year of public cash but is still commercial - nothing to stop Gaelic programming from being produced on a similar basis.

How has the BBC killed commercial radio?
The BBC trains all the sound engineers who then leave the BBC to get the higher pay in commercial radio.

And I don't think the BBC pushes up salaries, ITV andSky bosses and staff earn much more, this is why people leave the BBC to work there.

I hate sky as you pay a montly fee to watch TV with adverts, so they get two revenue streams. I also hate adverts.

And would any commercial channel step in and make children's TV? BBC is the only broadcaster making children's drama, commercial channels can't make moeny out of it so don't make it.

Everything for children on Sky is American.

it still gets £94m of public money!

"The BBC needs to be cut back to allow private sector TV and radio to flourish"

In what way does the BBC stop private sector TV from flourishing?

"Strip it to the bone of pure public service TV and radio and make it free."

"The right to watch TV should be free. The TV licence is a tax that falls especially hard on poorer people. I want people to be able to watch Freeview and FreeSat truely for free."

And exactly how could it be free?

At present the cost of funding it is born only by license payers, so people who are exempt from a license get it free.

It we dropped the license it would need to be funded from general taxation. So all the population, whether entitled to a free license or not, would be paying for it.

So the people who would pay for a "free" BBC are those who currently don't need a license and those who would benefit from it are those who do currently pay for a license.

That's hardly fair.

The way it is funded needs a complete shake up. I would pay for bbc channels voluntarily because some of its programming is good and I like the lack of adverts, but people that cannot afford it or don't want to watch it should be able to opt out and watch commercial tv for free.

I can see that having a number of bad side effects.

The BBC would get a lot less money, the quality of their output would drop.

The BBC's transmissions would need to be protected and only visible if you pay the license. Legally this is complex, the BBC have been trying to protect their HD broadcasts and OFCOM have been fighting them over it.

Viewers would need to pay more money to get the equipment/cards that allow them to watch the BBC shows. This would then feed back into the first issue where people will think "I'm not buying a new decoder on top of paying my license fee" and so give up on the BBC further hitting their income.

And finally it would turn the BBC into what would to all intents and purposes be a normal commercial broadcaster reliant on income from their viewers. How long before they push to be allowed to have advertising so as to support the quality of what they do? So by trying to protect non-commercial TV you end up forcing the BBC to become commercial in order to survive.

There is a lot in the BBC that could and should be cut back, personally I would cut back the TV output by 1 station merging CBeebies and CBBC and merging and sharing the BBC Three and BBC Four content with BBC One and BBC Two. I'd also merge 1Extra back into Radio1.

If the government are keen on this Big Society thing then I think BBC local radio could have a key part in that in forming a community hub both on air and online.

The BBC is already under a bigger than usual squeeze partly in financing the digital changes and because the host national broadcaster is in charge of providing the infrastructure of the Olympic Games broadcasts worldwide so I hope they aren't pushed to breaking point in the next few years.