How do YOU think the BBC should be paid for?

Did you know that BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial arm, owns a 50 per cent stake in UKTV? Last year, through its commercial activity, BBC Worldwide returned about £174 million to the BBC to put towards content and programming. Do you agree that the BBC should raise revenue in this way through commercial ventures such as channels like UKTV?

The BBC notes that the licence fee works out at 40 pence per household per day for all its services. Do you think this offers good value for money?

As you point to in your post, the BBC is proposing to move the programmes and content it shows on BBC Three to online only, and to close the channel as a broadcast TV service in autumn 2015. What is your view on this proposal? Do you think you would be as likely to watch as much BBC Three-type content via iPlayer as you do now on TV?

I think it should be paid for via a subscription to BBC's services. The TV license essentially already is a subscription to BBC's services, but with two differences.

The first is that, even if I want to watch something that has nothing to do with the BBC, such as Sky Sports on my laptop, then I still have to pay the BBC subscription as well as the Sky one. It means that I'm paying for more than what I'm watching, Sky are receiving less money than the amount I'm paying, and the BBC are getting money for free. This clearly isn't fair.

The second is that, if I don't pay my Sky Sports subscription, all that will happen is that I'll stop being able to watch Sky Sports. The channel will just stop working. This to me, seems much more economically efficient than continuing to physically allow me to watch BBC channels, but sending threatening letters and sending inspectors round all the time to check whether or not I'm doing so, trying to fight cases in court etc.


The subscription method seems to me to be sufficient for the moment, and appears not to require any significant overhaul to the system. It just needs one tweak; that is, scrambling the channel for those who don't pay for it. Perhaps we could think about advertising in the future, because it seems a waste to have such popular programming on the BBC without taking advantage of the advertising space. However, I can see why the BBC would be reluctant to do this. Just like for example, Wikipedia, adverts would make it more difficult to claim that they are impartial. There might be a conflict of interest if BBC News ended up having to decide whether or not to report on a story of major tax fraud committed by one of its corporate sponsors.

Since this is a state provided service, and the state wishes to provide it to everyone, in theory I think it makes sense for the BBC to be funded by a tax on people's incomes. But, because it has traditionally not been done this way, it might be a bit difficult to implement. The state would either have to cut back on spending somewhere else, or raise taxes, both of which are likely to cause an uproar from some section of the public.

The broadcasting industry is now around the place that the music industry was in the early 2000's in my opinion and that makes subscription or TV license largely outdated.

Legally dubious or not I have not paid for music since 1998 (download from Napster to about 07 then stream). With shows from sky I now stream a lot and I would do the same if Iplayer went to anything I had to pay for.

Like the Music industry the broadcasting industry has to adapt or die. If the BBC want more and sustainable funding it must sell advertisements or people will stream elsewhere.

If the BBC were to be funded or partially funded by advertising, do you think it would change the nature of its content and programmes over time?

Its quite possible to protect the likes of BBC1 and 2 which can show the stuff that maybe would not be commercially popular while giving advertisers free reign on other channels and Iplayer.

Logging in requires a data capture, this data is often used for marketing or for pay walls. Targeted marketing is something that the BBC shouldn't be budgeting for. The BBC doesn't produce enough 'rated' content to be able to build this system for parental controls (there is an existing cookie-based system for parental restriction).

The BBC is widely regarded for its excellence in broadcasting and forms part of the British identity. Making any changes starts to alter that reputation in the world.

The BBC iPlayer would be an extremely stupid thing to put on a subscription model. In January 2014, there were 315,000,000 requests for content so it is clearly very popular. The only way that people would accept this would be if BBC iPlayer offered past seasons. This would require both more datacentres for the amount of data processed and probably a lot more cash needed to pay for rights to host it online.

As for BBC channels moving to a subscription model. Channels fulfill most of their remits. BBC One and Two are very popular and watched by all spectrums of the population. BBC Three could rack up a lot more viewership if the content was more original than repeated, for instance it'll tend to run all programming twice before the station shuts down in time for the CBBC channel to start broadcasting.

Part of me thinks that BBC Three and Four could be put into the private BBC company (this exists already) to join the global BBC News service (this may be BBC World Service?, anyway it already has ads if viewing from abroad) and be self-sufficient- Channel 4 is a Public Service Broadcaster publicly owned but running self-sufficiently. I wouldn't be opposed to advertising on those channels. If Cbeebies and CBBC were privatised then there'd be an urgency to keep them ad free which would mean that they would have to run at a loss. Perhaps Cbeebies and CBBC could be behind a TV pay wall?

The Welsh and Scottish governments should have to pay for the running of BBC Alba & Cymru. Up to them how they fund that.

If the TV Licence was easier to pay and cheaper then I think that more people would pay it. It's such a pain in the ass to deal with the TV Licencing people - I'd rather deal with SFE on a bad day! How much money is spent on pursuing student halls? I had a letter WAITING FOR ME despite not having moved in to tell me that I had a TV and needed to pay a licence. No, piss off. With Car Tax becoming easier to pay, the TV Licence should be too.

TV providers (Sky, Virgin etc) should be enforced legally to incorporate the TV licence into their fees to ensure that at least all those customers are paying.

I'd prefer options in this order:
*Simplified* TV licence
\/
Existing TV licence
\/
Part privatised with adverts on some services
\/
All content locked behind paywalls and subscriptions

What I meant was the govt of the day has too much influence on content such as the BBC is the only major media group to use the proper terminology for the bedroom tax even pro tory papers call it the bedroom tax. The entire culture of the BBC is to give deference to authority and the Government .

So my point is more than just media bias, its parliament has to much power on a multi billion dollar media platform from choosing the Head or starting committee reports into its content.

I also dont think the BBC is value for money. BBC also has a false reputation of being impartial and people trust its every word which is quite dangerous.

Fox News ? We already have the daily mail and OFCOM regulations regulate tv even if the BBC goes away

Its globally recognised because its so powerful and has so many resources not because of its genius investigative reporting like Vice or the Daily Show.

Top gear and Dr Who has very old shows pre 80s when hardly any private sector media. When is the most recent time the BBC produced a top show.

What revenue ? I dont see any benefit in reduced license fee or new content.

Most TV shows are made by independent production companies. British Films generate huge amounts of cash and the creative industry in the UK would do just fine, it would probably prefer 6 billion in tax cuts than sad old toffs at the BBC

Maybe because the BBC forces the rest of them into Bankruptcy and only Murdoch with his american revenue can survive in a market where his main rival have a huge cash advantage. ITV isnt struggling because of competition from murdoch. Channel4 which is also owned by the govt does fine with out murdoch

What role do you think Parliament and others should have in relation to the BBC? How should the BBC be held accountable in value for money and other terms? Who should regulate the BBC in cases of complaints over the accuracy and impartiality of its content?

If there were no BBC or a smaller BBC, what impact do you think that would have on UK-originated TV content?

If funded by advertising, would the BBC not become incentivised to chase ratings on all its main channels and services to appeal to those advertisers wishing to reach the largest audiences in order to maximise its commercial income?

I think the system of the Licence fee is brilliant and everyone pays the same amount of money across the board. It is clear and simple. Furthermore, there is a good system where Students, like myself, can claim back 25% of the licence fee as students often move out of uni for the summer which is around 3 months.

For £145.50 a year it represents incredibly good value at around 40p a day and when one thinks about how much of the content we watch, catchup on and listen to are from the BBC, one realises how worthwhile it is paying the licence fee.

It would be a disaster for the BBC if it was to start having adverts. The fact that the BBC has no adverts is its biggest strength and best asset as that is what distinguishes it above all other factors from other broadcasters. I sincerely hope that the BBC continues to be advert free.

40p per day adds up to £150 for the year (ish) which is a lot of money for students. That's a month of food with enough left for some nights out. A lot of money.

Q769 Mr Leech: Are you aware that the Committee ran an e-consultation on the student room websites, which suggested that students supported the licence fee as the funding model for the BBC but had raised some concerns about the unfairness of student halls of residence to students living in accommodation outside of halls?

Sajid Javid: I am not aware of that but I am aware that there are some concessions on the licence fee to do with a number of issues, either with age or the number of sets and so forth. Where people have concerns, as you have expressed, when the charter process starts I think that is also a good opportunity for stakeholders, like student groups and others, to put forward their concerns and they can be considered.


Q770 Mr Leech: Do you have a personal view on support for students with licence fee or support for the over-75s with licence fees?

Sajid Javid: I do on the over-75s and I think that is the right thing to do, but also to point out that is not a cost to the BBC. That concession is covered through general taxation.

I think it should be paid for via a subscription to BBC's services...
The subscription method seems to me to be sufficient for the moment, and appears not to require any significant overhaul to the system.

Q719 Angie Bray: Just to take you back briefly to the issue around subscription television. Have you done any research or can you see a possibility in the BBC offering particular premium subscription services? Obviously, the bulk of your programming would still be delivered free to air as now, but there might be an opportunity for the BBC offering particular niche type programmes on a subscription basis, which would, of course, alleviate some of the pressure on the licence fee payer. Is that something that you have thought about or looked into?

Rona Fairhead: I think that would be an intelligent way to look forward in terms of the charter review. There are going to be issues with that. I have read the Director-General’s session and feedback to the Select Committee in terms of some of the logistical issues that might have. It is important to say that the BBC should be trying to use sources of funding to make sure that the best value for money is possible. The licence fee is not the only source of funding, as you know, for BBC. BBC Worldwide does bring some money into the BBC and contribute and does raise the profile and have that outreach in being the UK’s place in the world. I think we have to concentrate on that as well, obviously within state aid and commercial issues, and we should be looking at other ways where we can help make the licence fee the best possible value for money.



Q720 Angie Bray: It would allow you to offer some more specialised niche programming that appeals to one section of your audience, if not to all sections. It would, therefore, be a way of funding that without making everybody pay for something that they do not particularly want to watch.

Rona Fairhead: As I said, I think the charter review should look at all sources of income that we could use and then decide. The core of the answer I was addressing was, “Is the licence fee a sensible model as the core?” but I think there are other sources of funding that we should be looking at with a view of making sure we have the funding to make quality programmes, stay impartial, but also give the best value for money.


Q721 Angie Bray: Are you looking into any of this? Are you actively examining some of these other options?

Rona Fairhead: We absolutely will be as part of the charter review. Not now because right now, as you know, it is fixed.