How public service broadcasters should be financed is frequently asked in the digital age. The main question being, should the BBC’s licence fee be sliced…so should it?
The BBC’s domestic broadcasting services are currently financed by the TV licence. The first licence fee for colour television was introduced in January 1968. The current £142.50 colour licence fee generates £3.5 billion a year for the BBC.
However, ministers have argued the licence fee should be sliced to support regional news other channels. If the licence fee were to be sliced, the income it generates would be shared among the BBC and its rivals (ITV, Channel 4 and five).
Other channels do appear to be struggling to fund their public service output. For example, in the spring of 2009, Plymouth’s regional news output from ITV was closed down. Plymouth’s ‘local’ ITV news now comes from Bristol, which covers seven counties including Dorset and Somerset. So the question is, with ITV and other channels funding themselves commercially, does regional news really have a future other than through the BBC?
The Policy Exchange issued a report on the future of public service broadcasting on 14 January 2010. It says the BBC should give 5 percent of its licence fee (about £175 million) to other channels by 2018 to provide regional news programming. It also suggests the BBC could commission programming for other broadcasters such as Channel 4, as it already does so with American networks.
The report asks: “If it is ok for the BBC to co-fund with US commercial broadcasters why should it not be possible to co-fund with UK broadcasters if those broadcasters have a PSB remit”. This is a question worth considering. If the BBC were to share funding, would it save other public service broadcasters?
On the other hand, Stephen Fry’s speech in 2008 (above) showed how the slicing of the licence fee may reduce the BBC as a public service broadcaster. Is this really what we want to do?
broadcasting5
camelstu
ejk
hayleygrainger
rosssatron
Stuart Oates
zoegraham
Digitegrity 
Great post and questions Hayley.
I think it is interesting that Stephen Fry also describes the emotional link the BBC holds for the nation and the way it ‘enriches the country’. This intangible value is something to remember.
As is the way that the BBC is perceived abroad: BBC Worldwide is the international, commercial arm of the BBC which generates revenue abroad.
It describes its’ mission statement as being: “to create, acquire, develop and exploit media content and brands around the world in order to maximise the value of the BBC’s assets for the benefit of the UK licence payer”.
This is a further regulation and ethics debate to add to the BBC’s methods of generating income for public service broadcasting which I shall post on in more detail.
It’s worth having a close look at ITV’s proposals for regional news – a lot of commentators are beginning to think that the plans for news consortia in selected areas could hit the buffers.
Stephen Fry – as eloquent as ever, and hits the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned. As Zoe pointed out, the emotional attachment is something to remember and, as a knee-jerk reaction, is probably the initial reason that many people are against the proposed slicing.
I can see the argument from both sides, but I can’t help but think that money isn’t necessarily going to solve the problems of other broadcasters. As far as news is concerned, ITV and Channel 4 still get their camera crews out to cover all the stories that the BBC do, and yet the BBC is still, for many, their television news outlet of choice. That has nothing to do with how much money they have to spend – for whatever reason, people seem to trust the BBC more for their news.
My question is why now? Maybe I’ve just been unaware of an age-old argument, but I don’t remember such a debate happening when ITV was happy with their progress.
Stephen Fry’s closing sentiment says it all I think: “The BBC enriches the country in ways we will only discover when it is gone and it’s too late to build it up again. We actually can afford the BBC because we can’t afford not to.”
There’s no guarantee that slicing money off for other broadcasters will necessarily improve their output, but there is a danger that it will affect the high quality of programming that we’ve come to expect from the BBC. I’d rather we had one really high quality channel rather than lots of mediocre ones.
I completely agree, slicing the licence fee is only going to unnecessarily knock the BBC. Why should they be punished in effect, because of their success? This is something I can’t quite get my head around. Giving a share of the licence fee to other broadcasters isn’t going to help them make better programming, nor gain the trust of their audiences. They either have that already, or they won’t have it at all.
The BBC’s come under fire again since the suggestion of cuts to the licence fee, resulting in plans to close two of its profitable radio stations (see ‘BBC to cut its services’ post).