All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Fred Perkins: I'm not sure there is any 'smoke and mirrors' to this.
Your correct that the BBC broadcasts generally, and therefore there are no special costs associated with the over 75 age group (I notice that Radio 2's Sunday shows, 'Sing Something Simple' and 'The Organist Entertains' seem to have finally vanished). On the other hand, I fail to see what ' windfall benefits' its had 'from the increasing number of over 75's for whom it receives extra benefit' . Extra DVD sales of Last of the Summer Wine?
You are perfectly correct when you say 'The current basis of BBC funding does however transfer the theoretical 'cost' to what the BBC is entitled to receive from licence fee income. ' The cost of the over 75's free licence is paid for by the government out of general taxation, rather than the pockets of the licence holders themselves, but at present the BBC does not lose out - it still gets the money.
But as Brianist has pointed out, George Osbourne has a cunning plan. The Tories are well aware that pensioners were the single largest demographic to vote Tory (and every party is fully aware that pensioners turn out to vote at higher levels than any other demographic) - so Osbourne wants to make them happy by giving them things. And in the way that Osbourne gives things to people he likes by generally taking away money from someone else, he simply wants all other licence fee payers to pay for it instead.
This makes perfect sense to the current government. I've long argues that the Tories would employ a mixture of tactics, but the first would be to 'starve the beast' by refusing to increase the licence fee in line with inflation. In effect, a cut in revenue.
However, you can also burden the beast by making it do or pay for yet more things. The World Service is a quarter of a billion pound cost that also used to be paid by government, and if you add to that the costs of S4C (so we are paying for both the BBC service and its rival) and the money given to the amazingly unsuccessful local TV stations (questions asked by the Public Accounts Committee would be interesting) and the rural broadband rollout (again - why?)
Frankly, I think this is a red line. If governments want to give money to particular sectors of society, thats up to them. But Osbourne wants the BBC to pay for it instead. Thats not fair to the BBC or the other licence fee payers. It seems that I'm expected to spend twenty percent of my licence fee helping to pay for my parents licence. If George Osbourne wants to balance the books by cutting this particular benefit, then let it be, but dont just tip the burden onto everyone else with no discussion whatsoever.
Before the normal nonsense starts about the BBC being a public service, etc, lets put it another way. How would Sky react if the government suddenly announced that all customers over 75 automatically got the basic package free (which many of them did during switchover - paid for by government), and Sky was expected to swallow the cost? I suspect thats not going to happen. So why should the BBC do the same?
| link to this comment |
Cutting the cord is a US thing, but there are some differences between us and the States, and cutting the cord has its downsides.
US consumers have grown to hate their insect overlords, or should I say their cable companies, because unlike the UK, the bulk of TV is watched via cable or dish. Those companies generally have a local monopoly, often have high prices and like to bundle channels you dont watch (Sports for instance) with ones that you might. As a subscriber, you'll have to pay for these, even if you dont watch them.
US websites showing how to do this tend to explain to people that they can still get programmes via an aerial (in a way which makes it sound like old lost knowledge - like growing and canning heritage variety veg) and using Apple TV, Chromecast etc to get services like Hula, etc.
However, there are snags. Firstly, if your going down the streaming route, you'll need broadband. That often means carrying on paying the same rapacious huge corporation which was gouging you in the first place. And although thanks to the seeming victory of Net Neutrality in the US certain broadband providers cannot strange bandwidth unless they get a big 'fee' from the content provider, broadband can still be far too slow. Rural Iowa is not going to be lightening fast. In fact AOL (the Satan of ISP's) apparently still makes a decent living out of dialup customers in many rural areas of the States.
And of course if you have severed links with large groups like Viacom, you then have to deal with the likes of Amazon, HBO (owned by Time Warner), Netflix, Hula (owned by NBC, etc), CBS, etc.Plus of course Google or Apple. All very cuddly and upstanding.
Now in the US you can watch via a TV, or whatever you like, but here its a little different.
Firstly, you need a licence to watch a TV (unless it has no way of getting live transmissions). Since the bulk of people do have such a TV, then they are still going to have to pay anyway. So cutting the cord doesn't save you any actual cash, but does mean you can generally only watch an hour or more later than everyone else, find it more difficult to record, etc. And since we dont tend to have cable, we are not reverting back to aerials, etc - thats what the bulk of people in the UK already use.
So OK, your watching ona PC, laptop etc. Whoopie Do. You are watching on a screen which at largest is generally 27-28in (although there are some 34in around). Thats a bedroom TV, and possibly about the samesize as the one your parents had in a CRT in 1999. Mostly they are 24in, which takes you back to the 1970's or 1980's. And if its a laptop screen, then its possibly the sixties or before. A Kindle? Think Logie Baird.
When you want to watch England crash out of the next World Cup, do you want to watch it on a small screen or a large screen (48-50in is now the average main room size). And do you want to watch it live, or an hour or more after everyone else? Its going to be so much fun getting everyone round to watch the Strictly Final an hour later than everyone else and on a screen half the size that your friends have got. OK, so some services will allow you to watch live, but adding up the cost of that each month might be more expensive than you might think. And its true that 4K is only going to be streamed at present, but if your just buying a 4K for streaming, your viewing might be a bit narrow, and frankly, you've just splashed out on a new TV - the marginal cost of a licence might not be the prime consideration.
And its depends what you watch. There is some talk that Netflix UK really doesn't have the sort of library that the US version does, and if your the sort of person who prefers Call the Midwife to Game of Thrones, then your going to be a bit disappointed. And if your bandwidth is low (and for much of the country its very slow), then all your going to get is a little swirly symbol in the middle of your screen.
Every time there is an article about the BBC licence fee in the Guardian, the comments section is full of the normal bar room blather. There are also a number who say they never use the BBC (probably lying) or if they do, then they do it via their PC, etc and thus pay nothing. They tend to put this forward as some sort of libertarian 'sticking it to the man' type thing, but basically is because they are moochers, living off the rest of us. Its time to make Iplayer dependent on having a valid licence fee - it would be easy, it would quickly show up those who dont seem to ever watch the BBC, but yet just once or twice..., and would cut down hugely the number of freeloaders.
As for cuts, lets start with Long Wave (not a lot of money, but it sends a message) and the five million a year that the BBC apparently has to pay the local TV companies for content (how about payment by results?). Again, a tiny amount, but it says that the BBC is not going to take any bull.
BBC4? Thats going to hurt, and if it does, then the BBC can point out to every newspaper columnist in the land which loves BBC4 (pretty much all of them) that supporting the freeze in licence fee, etc has consequences.
Local Radio? people are going to hate that. So in that case, dont write to the BBC, write to your local Tory MP. The BBC has less money, and they are one of the reasons why.
Almost seventy percent of TV is still watch live - thats a habit, and its takes a long time to change habits. Even if the average 17 year old is streaming to their hearts content, they will want to watch must see TV on a big screen if they can, and certainly live if possible, and by the time they get to the pint of buying their own large TV, then they will still stream, but that wont be the only way they watch.
Cutting the cord? You can if you want, but whether people actually get what they want or save money might be a more difficult question.
| link to this comment |
Jamie: If your not using the BBC at all, then I've no great problem with not paying the licence fee. OK, so you used the BBC website once or twice, but thats not a hanging offence,. If your not using the service, then your not sponging! The ones I hate are those who comment on websites swearing that they never use the BBC in anyway shape or form, but you know they do (a bit like a supposed veggie lecturing you, when your pretty sure that they've just has a Big Mac). Personally, I think your missing out on a load of great stuff, but its your call.
I am interested in what prompted you to change completely, and what you use to do so (Pocket Lint has a guide, and its interesting to see the differences between the services). Which service do you use, and am I guessing right that your watching tends to be films and US series like Game of Thrones etc? My brother could also be termed one of the 4%, and he has said that he doesn't really need a tuner in the new TV he just bought, since he pretty much streams everything. On the other hand, he is an IT professional, has 100mb fibre supply, and is an early adopter (I tend to get his castoffs!).
One thought did occur to me. If you are streaming via Amazon, Netflix, Itunes, etc for mostly US shows, could it be said that you've cut the cord not so much from terrestial broadcasting (and not just the BBC), but to a large extent, Sky?
| link to this comment |
Briantist: It would be interesting if someone like GeordieLad could actually define what they mean by 'non commercial', and ' educational and information services'.
I think we can all agree that some TV is very commercial. Someone trying to win a million pounds by wading through a swimming pool full of jelly whilst being wrestled by semi nude women would generally be seen as very commercial (although what Reith did on his weekends is another matter...).
On the other hand, I suspect a baking competition or a programme where people learnt to ballroom dance would normally not excite ITV. Yet both are very popular, and dance programmes have been widely copied by commercial broadcasters.
I'd love for someone who only thinks that the BBC should only put on programmes which the commercial channels do not to put together a schedule. Please tell us what sort of programmes you would have on, and who would watch it (and pay for it).
I suspect that any such schedule would depend on the pet loves/hates or the individual and would exclude anything that was not '".... only the things that I watch".
Its very sad that the BBC has had to make these cuts, and although its not apparently hitting the frontline, those people who are going may have had a good role in bringing programmes to screen. It of course also reinforces the idea that there is plenty of fat at the BBC, and any talk of shortfalls is scaremongering. I suspect relatively few people believe that downloading was really to blame by itself. They huge reduction in real terms of the licence fee, plus the extra burdens imposed on the BBC is the real reason.
I suspect they are blaming downloading because a) It makes a compelling reason to reform the law, which of course the Tory government will be more than happy not to implement - its a drain on BBC resources, so they would like to keep the loophole out of simple cussedness. And of course it gives a reason which does not include 'we blame Jeremy Hunt and George Osborne', which of course is correct. They are to blame, but pointing that out to the government might only make things worse.
The sad thing is that this could have all been avoided, if we had a less ideologically driven government (or series of governments). There is nothing basically wrong with the licence fee or the BBC, and some simple changes is all thats needed, as was laid out in the Guardian yesterday The Guardian view on the licence fee: now is the time to rally round the BBC | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian
However, that article is also right in that if you like the BBC, you have to shout far louder than the most of the people commenting on that piece, and certainly louder than the numerous newspaper columnists, media barons and sundry hangers on who attack it. Haters gotta hate, but it doesn't mean they have to get away with it.
I've just finished reading 'The Blunders of Our Governments' by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe (highly recommended). They mention the story of a Tory supporting Englishman who had emigrated to the States being asked by Keith Joseph what he missed most about the UK. Apparently Joseph was taken aback by the reply - ' The BBC and the NHS'. King and Crewe point out that 'Ironically, the fact that people endlessly grumble about it (the NHS) testifies to its success, given the fact that most of the people who grumble would never dream of wanting to see it abolished'.
I suspect that much the same could be said of the BBC. The Englishman in America was the nearest we have to a counter factual - 'What if the BBC or NHS did not exist?' You cannot prove a counter factual, but you can show people what the alternative is by looking elsewhere. Its interesting that people who have lived abroad tend to be far stronger supporters of the BBC than those who have not - they have seen the alternative, and therefore tend to rate the BBC highly. Perhaps we should remind those who complain of this, and why.
BTW - I'm looking forward to reading Charlotte Higgins new book on the BBC - any reviews so far?
| link to this comment |
Mike Hutchinson: I agree with all you have written above. However, Channel 4 is a bit of a special case. Its a publicaly owned company (well, for the moment...) which has a remit to:
"demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes;
appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;
makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; and
exhibits a distinctive character." (from the wiki page)
So its quite right that it offers a load of public service programmes - thats its job! And its does it generally very weel, although not everything is all that great.
Yes, its commercial funded, although in 2007 when financies were tight it was granted money from the licence fee, which never happened due to the government at the time apparently looking more generally at PSB. Of course the BBC now has to support S4C, rather than C4 doing it, so the burden has shifted to the licence fee. And the head of C4 (despite falling viewership) has got about 850 grand (including bonus), which almost double the amount the BBC's DG gets.
| link to this comment |
Patricia: Look at your manual - your TV simply isn't getting a signal. Could be as simple as the lead coming out of the back of the TV. On the other hand, your aerial system but have a break.
| link to this comment |
I totally agree - its basically the Government using the BBC as a piggie bank, and simply would not accepted by any other organisation. The idea thats its any kind of deal (in return for getting rid of the Iplayer loophole) is nonsense - its a shakedown. At least they no longer have to pay for rural broadband, and there is a rise in line with CPI (although others have pointed out that using CPI saves the government money).
The interesting part is the power balance between Whittingdale, Osborne, the media and Tory MP's.
Whittingdale's shadow pointed out that Whittingdale had totally ruled out any change to the BBC having to pay for the over 75's as social policy. And yet it will, and he had to announce it. So Whittingdale, zealot in so many ways, was not ruthless enough for Osborne, and has been sidelined.
What does Osborne get out of it? Firstly, he gets to kill the BBC. Thats long been a dream of many on the free market right, simply because its ideologically attractive (shrink the sate small enough to drown it). It makes Osborne look a leader in taking on 'them', and burnishes the idea of him being the sort of person who will shrink the state, which will be attractive in the upcoming Tory leadership contest. And he doesn't have to put a bill through parliament, etc. He just has to make them run out of money.
Next, it of course pleases Rubert Murdoch, to which the Tories are very grateful after their slightly unexpected win. The idea that the BBC website and regional/local news threatens either the national or local press in any way is total nonsense of course, but when interviewed, he was careful to mention the main Tory papers. These are papers to which the Tories are grateful, and of course whose support Osborne will need in his bid to be leader of the Tories.
And of course he gets to use the BBC as a slush fund, continuing to give money to pensioners (which votre more than anyone else, and the only section of the population to majority vote for the Tories), thus saving him lots of money to help pay down the deficeit, which is still stubbonly high, despite his chancellorship.
Its a win win win for him. Although he's pretty much been anointed the next Tory leader, he is still going to have to run. And he will be up agains Gove, Tersea may, and of course Boris Johnson. And Johnson tends to be liked a lot more than Osborne.
Can this be stopped? It looks like a done deal, becuase the BBC has already agreed, and since the fee is collected on behalf of the BBC by government, I suspect its perfectly legal and almost impossible to stop (the Tories have decided they are going to give away Housing Association property, which they dont even own, so I dont have much hope), unless there is a really strong reaction. And I'm not holding my breath. The Sun this morning had the usual line (hardly surprising), and there are fair number of useful idiots around who will support it. It was depressing to hear on Broadcasting House a possible Labour Peer talking nonsense about this, whereas Lynn Falls-Wood got it instantly, and argued it well.
And this is just the begining - wait until negotiations for Charter Renewal start. Its going to get very nasty, which at least will mean we will get to see just how nasty, self serving and stupid people can be.
| link to this comment |
Briantist: Fair play? This is politics, and saying what you really think might not get you elected. So you come out with a bland statement, and hope nobody notices.
A quick google brings up a whole load of broken manifesto promises from 2010.
The 2010 manifesto said:'We will introduce measures to protect wildlife and promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.' (remember greenest government ever?). Strangely forgot to add that they would try to sell off the Forestry Commission about 5 seconds after getting into Downing Street, and after then trying (and almost succeeding) in bribing The Woodland Trust and The National Trust ito back the sale, public opinion and the efforts of people like 38 Degrees killed it. If they had been less in a rush, they might have got away with it. And dont even start on no topdown NHS reorginisation...
If they had written 'we really hate the BBC, and want to cut massive chunks from its budget', then that might have attracted attention. So you simply say your going to keep the licence fee frozen (which is bad enough), and bide your time. However, I think only the most naive observer would fail to see what happened during the last Charter Renewal and the attacks from both government figures and their friends in the media.
I'm a huge fan of Molly Ivins, and her dictum about politicans and their track records holds true. If a politican has been horrible to poor people before, then its unlikely that they will stop doing so, no matter what they might say in front of the cameras. And even being relected by the narrowest of margins is unlikely to make them tread more carefully - in fact its generally the opposite.
I suspct the Wykemist Fallacy is still clouding many peoples judgement - they cant really want to kill the BBC and all that it does , just because of ideology and the wishes of their backers? Yes, they do. They have signalled it long enough http://www.theguardian.co…val, and they have five years to do so. The only thing the BBC can do is be prepared to fight very hard next year, and mobilise its allies. Of course they have a whole newsroom capable of digging up all sorts of dirt and Osbourne sounds like an interesting target....
| link to this comment |
Monday 29 June 2015 7:05PM
monotones: The mobile and TV signals have nothing to do with other, unless your in a dip which means you get no signal of any kind.
Your postcode shows that your awrial should point almost straight North (20 degrees) and pick up Preseli pretty well, since your really close. If your not tuned in properly or not getting anything, sounds like your aerial system has a problem - broken wire, etc.