The BBC licence fee will be abolished in 2027 and the broadcaster’s funding will be frozen for the next two years, the government has said, in an announcement that will force the broadcaster to close services and make further redundancies.

 

The culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, will announce that the cost of an annual licence, required to watch live television and access iPlayer services, will remain at £159 until 2024 before rising slightly for the following three years. She also said this would be the end of the current licence fee funding model for the BBC, raising doubts about the long-term future of the public broadcaster under a Conservative government.

 

Dorries said: “This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over. Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.”

 

The BBC will have to negotiate with the government over an entirely new funding model when the final licence fee funding deal expires in 2027 – raising the prospect of a subscription service or part-privatisation.

 

The Mail on Sunday quoted an ally of Dorries as saying: “There will be a lot of anguished noises about how it will hit popular programmes, but they can learn to cut waste like any other business. This will be the last BBC licence fee negotiation ever. Work will start next week on a mid-term review to replace the charter with a new funding formula. It’s over for the BBC as they know it.”

 

The source added that “the days of state-run TV are over” and praised the growth of US-run companies such as Netflix and YouTube.

 

Although the BBC will continue to receive £3.2bn a year in licence fee income, the costs of making its programmes are increasing rapidly due to rising inflation and competition from the likes of Netflix. As a result, the corporation will have to make hundreds of millions of pounds in spending cuts in order to balance its books.

 

The BBC has already made substantial cuts behind the scenes, meaning the next round of cuts are likely to hit on-air services. As a result the public should prepare for the BBC to provide less high-end drama and sports coverage, pad schedules with cheaper programmes, and potentially close some channels or services altogether. This could in turn erode support for the BBC if the public no longer feel they are receiving value-for-money from the licence fee.

 

The licence fee deal will cover a five-year period to 2027, with the cost to the public likely to increase in the final three years – although this increase could also be at a below-inflation rate, meaning further cuts to BBC output could be required.

 

Dorries’ allies said there would be no further licence fee deal under a Johnson government and they would look to find a new funding model for the corporation. Calls for the BBC to become a paid-for subscription service have always been undermined by the widespread popularity of broadcast radio and Freeview television services, which cannot be put behind a paywall.

 

The BBC has already been preparing for the end of the licence fee, with proposals including a universal levy on broadband subscriptions or funding the broadcaster with a grant from general taxation – although this could undermine its editorial independence and leave it even more at the whim of government funding.

 

Negotiations over the amount the BBC can charge for the licence fee have been ongoing for some time, with a final deal delayed by Dorries’ appointment in the autumn. The government has placed substantial pressure on the corporation’s news output, claiming it is biased against the government, at the same time as negotiating over the corporation’s financial future.

 

The BBC has faced repeated deep real-terms spending cuts since the start of the Tory/LibDem coalition government in 2010, with the Conservatives forcing the BBC to pay for free licences for the over-75s – then blaming the BBC when they took the benefit away.

 

A BBC source said of the licence fee proposals: “There has been similar speculation before. There are very good reasons for investing in what the BBC can do for the British public, and the creative industries and the UK around the world. Anything less than inflation would put unacceptable pressure on the BBC finances after years of cuts.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/...-funding-frozen

 

Opening a thread here for discussion from a more non-political view if possible i.e. how the BBC can operate, whether we need the licence fee, whether alternative models are sustainable, how this will affect British culture - we have the News & Politics forum for the politics of this.

It's hard to have a non politic discussion, when this is ultimately a political decision.

 

 

Starve it to death - the ultimate Tory philosophy. Unfortunately it will actually work here unlike with the NHS

Edited January 16, 20223 yr by Chartfridays

Would this mean that adverts would have to be played between programmes? Sorry for the dumb question.

Whatever your views on the BBC/Licence fee model, the idea of using the Netflix model as an alternative is ridiculous in my view. I don't know the full ins and outs of it but Netflix has borrowed $16 billion and is in $10-15 billion debt - it's a high risk business model to switch to.

 

The BBC can currently take risks under the current model and make shows that appeal to different sections of society as it doesn't need to be concerned as much about the commercial side of things. I do worry about the future of British content, both TV and radio without the BBC operating as we know it today. Yes, there are multiple failings in certain areas but, on the whole, it provides an excellent service across a range of platforms. It is particularly the home of prestige drama that can and in fact is competing with American shows and yet many of these are unlikely to have been made if the BBC wasn't what it is.

 

Even stuff like The One Show was CRUCIAL during the heights of the pandemic in providing the crucial information in an easy to explain way and to address concerns, as well as providing a source of comfort for many people.

Would this mean that adverts would have to be played between programmes? Sorry for the dumb question.

Potentially, it depends on the operating model. If it wanted to continue as it is, as a channel, most likely. It'll likely follow the Channel 4 model where it is state owned but it has adverts and all profits go back to creating content.

So was becoming the government state mouthpiece, likr the media in a fasvist dictatorship, worth it in the end BBTory? ;)

The government has placed substantial pressure on the corporation’s news output, claiming it is biased against the government, at the same time as negotiating over the corporation’s financial future.

 

So, so fascist!

The BBC is an important institution. While BBC News has lost its way over the last decade, the rest of the output is great and provides an incredible return to the public. It’s commitments to access allow communities that are otherwise tough to reach remain connected through TV and Radio connections. They provide important educational content, content in minority languages and give a platform for British talent across the industry to learn, grow and flourish.

 

 

Personally I would quite like to be able to pay an Expat license that gives me access to iPlayer and a live broadcast (via iPlayer) of BBC News in return for a monthly fee. Many British expats would gladly do the same to supplement the income of the BBC. It’s an alternative funding model they should consider and in the meantime we all should be campaigning to rid the country of Tories. Because this is purely political ideology by a party that is misaligned with the interests of the country. To truly save the BBC, the only answer is political because we need to remove the poisonous leeches from the corridors of power

Would this mean that adverts would have to be played between programmes? Sorry for the dumb question.

 

I think the plan the government are trying to push them to is a subscription model.

 

The question is how far they go with it.

 

Remove the compulsory license fee but allow people to make a voluntary donation and keep the BBC roughly as is -

Remove the compulsory license fee but make access to the BBC a condition of paying a subscription fee - essentially privatising it.

Abolish the license fee, and fund the BBC directly from taxes to remove the pressure of individuals to pay the bill.

 

The last one would actually deal with the concern Dorries is citing around pressure on individuals, so if she does anything else we know what we already know for sure - this is a political move.

The BBC License fee was never going to survive in its current format. TV viewership is on the decline and levying it as a tax in all but name with the collection doled out to unregulated harassers has been a sore point for a while among those who don't watch any or little television.

 

Using the Netflix model isn't exactly ideal given the huge losses inherent but as long as it's still creating value within the society that's worth it, then sure.

 

It depends what you want the future of the BBC to be. A broadcaster that returns to and retains a high-quality news service and separately takes on original, risky and informative programming that those who are interested have the option to fund, sure. That would be great. Fund the tax to run such progressively and ensure that while it is funded by the government, it is truly not under control of it, independently vet the board and reduce wastage of hiring stars.

 

this isn't to say I agree with what the government is doing, the end of the license fee is great news but the angle they are taking is to force it into privatisation where it will eventually through market forces become indistinguishable from other channels and die the death that is coming to all broadcast TV quicker.

There is a side issue here. Certain sporting events (eg. the Olympic Games, World Cup, FA Cup Final) have to be available on free-to-air channels. If the BBC became a subscription service, it wouldn't count as free-to-air.

 

As for Netflix, what was its contribution to the national effort in lockdown? The BBC produced a huge amount of educational material to help with home learning. The BBC's news output is poor at the moment, but Netflix doesn't produce any news at all. How many Netflix shows can genuinely be described as a risk?

I do sometimes feel the most vocal critics of the BBC don't really realise how lucky we have it in its current form compared to other countries, it's definitely not perfect to say the least, but it's absolutely crucial for education, representation and impartiality. Unless the government changes in that time, it'll be a serious change that I don't think many will be anticipating. I really don't think the Netflix model would work for it given the amount of content the BBC produces.

 

Saying that, I can see how the current model is flawed with the license fee (especially the harassing letters for a TV license), but I don't anticipate this government seek to better that and instead seek privatisation which would just...not be good for anyone.

Would this mean that adverts would have to be played between programmes? Sorry for the dumb question.

The biggest problem with this option is that it is hard to see where the advertising would come from, apart from companies reducing the amount they spend advertising on other channels. Therefore, the overall money available for making programmes across the BBC, ITV, C$ and C5 would fall significantly.

There is a side issue here. Certain sporting events (eg. the Olympic Games, World Cup, FA Cup Final) have to be available on free-to-air channels. If the BBC became a subscription service, it wouldn't count as free-to-air.

 

As for Netflix, what was its contribution to the national effort in lockdown? The BBC produced a huge amount of educational material to help with home learning. The BBC's news output is poor at the moment, but Netflix doesn't produce any news at all. How many Netflix shows can genuinely be described as a risk?

 

I could imagine anything required by law to be free-to-air remaining so even if most content goes behind a paywall. Many important events (like PMQs, the Queen's Speech, and Eurovision) have Youtube live streams available which are free to access (in some countries for Eurovision, I can't remember if they blocked it in the UK).

 

Neflix produces few non-entertainment shows and is guided by the profit motive, which is why it is concerning that the government praise it. It also produces loads of shows that get very few views and it cancels them just as quickly. Again, a problem specifically with infinite growth and a continual need for economic evaluation of societal apparatus. I wouldn't like to see the BBC become anything like Netflix.

@1482695942994333700

 

Can't say I'll be shedding a tear tbh.

Haha, I said the EXACT same thing in this thread. Was it worth it, BBTory?

I think the plan the government are trying to push them to is a subscription model.

 

The question is how far they go with it.

 

Remove the compulsory license fee but allow people to make a voluntary donation and keep the BBC roughly as is -

Remove the compulsory license fee but make access to the BBC a condition of paying a subscription fee - essentially privatising it.

Abolish the license fee, and fund the BBC directly from taxes to remove the pressure of individuals to pay the bill.

 

The last one would actually deal with the concern Dorries is citing around pressure on individuals, so if she does anything else we know what we already know for sure - this is a political move.

 

The last solution would be concerning though, as it essentially leaves the BBC even more at the whim of the government of the day than it is under the licence fee model.

That a lot of supporters of political parties think the BBC is biased against them says to me that they aren't, on the whole (and trust me Tory activists DO totally believe the BBC is biased against them, still, because any criticism is seen as bias rather than "fact" in their myopic viewpoint), so if all of them are happy to do away with the BBC in order to just have ITV news and Sky News and any news channel any mega-billionaire or foreign government wants to start up all Ive got to say is - you think it's been biased before you ain't seen nothin yet.

 

Best solution: vote Tories out, then Labour can deal with the issue and explain how they can have a BBC free from political interference from the party in power. If they fail to do that then they just want a differently-biased (as they see it) news organisation and are hypocritical.

 

In terms of how to pay for it, it's adverts or streaming. There's no other solution other than licence fee by any other name. Streaming companies provide no service except entertainment, it's all about watching what you want when you want. I'd be happy to pay for access to BBC content, especially when I'm abroad. Make it worldwide and it'd probably pay for itself. Plus side, all terrestrial TV would end, which will suddenly piss everyone off who thinks it's free to provide even if the BBC disappears, which it isn't. The cost for providing freeview would go to users, who would need more profitable advertising to make a profit. Those that couldn't get it would just end and increase the cost for the remaining stations.

 

Radio would have to have adverts, that'll piss off 10 million radio 2 listeners for a start, and they tend to be older. It'll also piss off the minority station listeners who will find that the current service is suddenly open to market forces who won't give a toss about niches. If the government requires some services to be provided by the BBC then they will have to explain carefully how they will fund them.

 

And of course, the BBC has a high reputation throughout the world, it's a great flag for the UK and for providing news free from Multi-billionaires influence. ITV doesn't. That also isn't free. Licence-fee payers pay to help wave the British flag abroad, and cutting that off would be cutting off your own nose and genitals to spite your face. Nadine Dorries is insane if she thinks that suddenly the UK is going to be more popular abroad without the BBC, especially given the shitty, pathetic post-Brexit boosts that haven't happened, and we'll just look more and more like a tin-pot dictator-ship where right-wing politicians can remove any media or news media they don't like.

It is a logicL fallacy to say that because both sides criticise something, that sometging is right or unbiased. It reports feom the CENTRE, and given our Overton Window, pushes it to the right. Reporting from the centre right is IN ITSELF bias. The right wing ALWAYS complains about its coversge, in order to further push the coverage in its favour. Its complaints are NOT comparable to ours. Sorry.

It’s ridiculous the tories are doing this the bbc still produces the best shows imo and I pay for Sky who buy in the best HBO dramas which are yes when you find a great one like Succession is class but it’s few and far between and the Sky Originals are awful in the most part. And that’s 40 quid a month!