digital tv
So the BBC is asking for the licence fee to increase by 2.3% over and above inflation for the next seven years. This extra increase is largely to pay for the planned switch-over to digital tv in the UK.
I love the BBC. Radio 4 and the World Service are excellent radio stations that have no equal anywhere in the world. I enjoy the extra BBC digital radio stations and I rather like the BBC digital channels. Although News 24 does repeat itself a lot - and it bugs me that interviewers seemingly have no time to prepare their interviews, so often ask inane and irrelevant questions.
I also like the idea of digital tv. It is technically superior to analogue tv. It makes much better use of the frequencies allocated to it and it is, by design, less susceptible to interference. I fully support the changeover to digital tv, the plan to switch off the analogue signal and the re-use of those swathes of frequencies currently swallowed up by a small number of analogue channels.
But why is the BBC paying for the switch-over? As a broadcaster, the BBC will benefit from the switch-over. But so will ITV, Channel 4, Sky, all those wierd shopping channels and a multitude of other broadcasters. The Government will benefit by being able to sell off licences for the newly available frequencies. So why isn’t the cost shared out among all the above?
I would even be sanguine about the government footing the bill. They could recover the costs when they sell off the surplus frequencies. The switch-over will serve to expand the broadcast market and so has economic benefits.
But the licence fee is gathered specifically to fund the BBC. I am very disturbed that a precedent is being set here. Money is gathered for one purpose, to fund the BBC, then - hey, let’s spend it on something else.
When the next project crops up that has a vaguely TV or Radio bent to it - I know, let’s raid the BBC’s funds to pay for it!
What the government is doing here is profoundly dishonest. Through a slight of hand, they pretend they’re not paying for the digitial switch-over by shifting the burden to the BBC’s budget. It is disgraceful.
Blue Witch says:
Interesting point. That hadn’t occurred to me…
“Many people may also have to pay for a new aerial. This could prove a particular problem for the elderly and those on low incomes. Support for vulnerable households would be funded by the BBC through the licence fee, said Ms Jowell.”
So the rest of us get to put our hands in our pockets *again*, for certain ’segments’ of the community? Excellent.
If you view TV as a necessity, fair enough. Personally, I think it’s a luxury. And demographics show that the benefit receiving ’segments’ often smoke, drink and lead otherwise more unhealthy lifestyles than many of the rest of us. How many packets of cigarettes or evenings in pubs does one have to give up to afford a £150 FreeSat package? Not many.
Blue Witch spoke at 08:39 UTC on October 14th, 2005 link
Daisy says:
I agree with every word Richard, it is indeed setting a very worrying precedent. Then again, nothing about this government surprises me now.
Daisy spoke at 13:28 UTC on October 15th, 2005 link