Is it time to scrap the licence fee?

****

The nature of technology means that the license fee - unless the basis for its collection changes - is a diminishing return as people switch to self-programmed TV and media consumption. In effect, only big live events would make the cut and these will be on at the local pub, on big screens in the town square and probably in new venues like village halls or community centres.

And the public rather understands this and, increasingly supports scrapping the fee:

Half (51 per cent) of the UK want the BBC licence fee scrapped and the corporation to fund itself, a study of 2,049 Brits by ComRes has found.

Of course the BBC is having some sort of apoplexy at the temerity of the public and refers to its own (unpublished) research on the matter. Research that, naturally, shows a majority supporting the license fee.  What we need to appreciate here is that the BBC start by establishing that the licence fee is value-for-money (which it probably is) and then move to argue that this justifies its continuation. I find that, quite the contrary, the value-for-money defence undermines the rationale for a licence fee - if the fee is such good value then people will surely be happy to pay it voluntarily?

I am also uncertain as to the sense or purpose in having a state broadcaster. In the infancy of TV this rather made sense as did getting the income from licensing the hardware - after all it was only in the 1970s when near universal ownership of TVs was reached. Now, in a world of multiple, competing broadcasters the case for a state system collapses as does the compulsory approach to funding. If government wishes to use part of available output for its messages then, rather than owning the biggest chunk of broadcasting, it should purchase such coverage on the market.

And the way to guarantee the independence of the BBC - something we treasure - could be to take away the government's control of the Corporation's financing. So long as the funding for the BBC is via a state mandated poll tax then it remains a state broadcaster. I see no reason why the majority of people, through one route or another, wouldn't carry on subscribing to the BBC's coverage on a voluntary basis. And we would maybe see a reduction in the Corporation's indulgence in casual financial waste such as sending nearly 400 people to Brazil for the World Cup Finals and similar numbers to cover the US elections and Glastonbury festival.

None of the arguments here are about attacking the BBC. Rather, such an approach would make the BBC a more potent force since it would lose it's 'part of the state' tag and get a defence against being simply dismissed as 'establishment'. The Corporation might be smaller and some of its programming may move to orthodox advertising-based funding models but I believe it would be strengthened by such independence not weakened.

....

The end of civilization as we know it...

...or something like that as the European Court of Justice sticks it to Sky and the Premier League by allowing us to ship in those foreign decoders and watch the football as broadcast by Greeks, Finns and Luxembourgois. The sound of pub pontification echoes across the world (or would if more pubs were open) and many predict that the great football bubble will burst. In just a few short years will we see Wayne Rooney supplementing his meagre income by shining shoes at Piccadilly station and Arsene Wenger sat with a batter paper cup outside Highbury Station?

Somehow, people seem to miss the point. Quite rightly there is no copyright protection on a football match – after all, what’s involved? We point a camera at the pitch and, hey presto, a football match is broadcast. Not much human creativity there! So the issue never was copyright – the issue was the licence. And the ECJ has reminded us that we live in a ‘single market’ and that broadcasters cannot make arbitrary boundaries for their own purposes within than market that are enforceable. This is what Sky and the Premier League tried to do.

However, the idea that this will end the football bubble is misplaced. The licence agreements are time limited and subject to renegotiation. Up to that point the licensees (including Sky) are obliged to comply with the contracts – including, I assume, paying the fees. So in the short-term there is no effect on the Premier Leagues revenues. The problem comes when the licences are renegotiated.

The Premier League will – I’m prepared to bet – simply issue one set of licences for the whole EU. The losers won’t be Sky (unless some upstart Slovakian broadcaster outbids them) but the various local licence-holders. There won’t be a licence for Greece, a licence for Spain and a licence for Sweden – just one EU licence.

The publican in Portsmouth may be grinning broadly right now but her action, it seems to me, has caused little more than an irritation to the Premier League – but possibly a bigger bill for Sky (or that upstart Slovakian broadcaster).

It probably isn’t the end of the Premier League gravy train. Civilization will be saved!

....

Broadcasting Council Meetings - why all the fuss?

Yesterday Bradford Council met - the 90 Councillors (well most of us) gathered together to debate motions on cheques, post offices, the challenges facing the district, regeneration and litter. On the face of things it wasn't an extraordinary agenda - especially given these extraordinary times and the previous day's announcement of Bradford's central government grant settlement.

Everything started in the normal manner - the Lord Mayor made announcements, we stood in silence a remembered a recently deceased former Councillor and we welcome Russell Brown as the new member from the Worth Valley (succeeding Kris Hopkins the new MP for Keighley and from times now long past one Eric Pickles). We voted through a few procedural and technical motions, received a couple of petitions and dealt with questions to the leader.

And then - towards the end of our first debate - something quite unusual happened. We got an audience. Into the public galleries trooped a motley collection of protestors many clutching A4 posters emblazoned with the word "traitor" (sadly too far away from me to tell who or what was a traitor although I gather it was something to do the "The Cuts"). Believe me, dear reader, this is almost unheard of! We simply don't get an audience for our deliberations - over the years we've reorganised schools, closed libraries, accused eachother of terrible things and had some of the most unedifying rows. All without a real public audience.

Now I suspect that, for the protestors, this was their first visit to the (rather splendid) Council Chamber and some took the opportunity to take a few photographs. A not unreasonable expectation and hardly - even with the flash - an intrusion into the smooth running of the meeting. However, the Lord Mayor decided to tell them to stop taking pictures because they had not asked for prior permission (or at least that was what I think his reason was).

For me this response - as well as a rather over-the-top reaction to a couple of quite mild-mannered heckles and boos - illustrates our problem as a local democracy. And perhaps why the public don't bother to turn up. Our self-importance and overweening sense of occasion gets in the way of robust debate. For me - and I said this yesterday - there is no issue with the public taking pictures of a public meeting. And it's great that some members of the public actually turned up for a change (even if they all trooped out during my quite brilliant speech)!

We should encourage this engagement. We should welcome photography, smile a little at the odd heckle and should stick our proceedings up on the web for all to see. If that bunch down in Parliament can broadcast all their debates, I see no reason why Bradford Council can't do likewise. If we believe in openness and transparency, it's time to make more effort to show the public what it is we do on their behalf.

Install the web-cam, start tweeting and live blogigng the occasion - make it more engaging, more interesting and, maybe, a little more responsive.

...

A thought or two about the BBC and its strategy

***

As you all know there is almost nothing at all worth watching on the telly these days other than news or sports (and most of that’s quite missable) so like many other’s I’ve discovered the joy of scrolling through radio channels. In doing this I’ve discovered some weird and wonderful broadcasting, an enormous amount of commercial mush, some truly awful advertising and BBC 6Music.

Indeed, I am (almost) happy to pay the Telly Tax in the knowledge that some of it is being spent on an intelligent contemporary music channel – a kind of rock music version of Radio 3 (the other good thing done by the BBC). On 6Music I’ve become acquainted with some very oddly named bands and this in interspersed with sessions from the Beeb’s archive – listening to Wreckless Eric the other evening almost brought tears to my eyes!

So to the proposals contained (we’re told) in a major strategy review at the BBC. A review that seems wholly focused on further emasculating the Corporation’s minority and public service activity in favour of going head to head with Murdoch and ITV in chasing popularity. This seems to me wholly mistaken and misplaced, a pandering to big earning stars and executives and neglecting the BBC’s role.

Instead of using taxpayers cash to compete with commercial broadcasters, the BBC should be pulling away from that role. Instead of closing down half its website, what little remains of the world service and highly regarded minority radio stations, the BBC should be doing this:

1.Selling off Radio 1 and Radio 2 which are little different in content from commercial broadcasters and have no obvious public service purpose
2. Taking advertising on BBC1 which is just a commercial station broadcasting the same old rubbish as ITV but paid for from taxes
3. Using the Telly Tax income to try out more, new and creative radio, on-line and TV ideas like Radio 6Music – a jazz station, literature, film,

And the Government should be:

1. Netting off commercial income against the Telly Tax – the more the BBC sells the lower that tax
2. Providing an incentive for the BBC’s senior management to “monetise” the activity – whether on-line or broadcast. Pay them bonuses linked to the level of Telly Tax – high bonus for lower tax
3. Selling off sections of the BBC as they become commercially viable and sustainable
4. Ending the cosy BBC jobs advertising monopoly enjoyed by the Guardian

....