The tv license detector van

[Spencer For Hire]

Having said that, I notice Spencer comments on C4's declining output. Really? I find C4 is easily my most watched channel, I mean obv Big Brother is bilge but it pays for the rest of the channel.

Sure, and I watch it a lot of Channel 4 too. But it's hardly the groundbreaking channel it was. Primetime is full of property and lifestyle shows, and their factual output now relies heavily on populist, voyeuristic freak-show documentaries.

For what was set up to be an alternative, edgy channel catering for minorities, it's now depressingly mainstream, having been forced, unavoidably, to chase ratings.

[cdd]

BBC iPlayer states that you do not need a TV licence to watch downloaded files from its service on a laptop or other device. But, did they check whether I had a licence when I registered?

Now here is where shades of grey start to come in. 'TV receiving equipment' originally meant a TV. Later, it was expanded to include anything with a TV tuner, covering video recorders, satellite receivers, cable boxes, and latterly DVD recorders and TV cards for computers.

But where do they stand with IP TV? ...

Obviously, TV Licencing (and probably the BBC with them) will tell you that you do, but it'd be interesting to know whether or not the law as it currently stands actually requires you to be licenced for IPTV use.

The answer is "no, you don't need a licence", and the BBC says as much in some consulting document for the iPlayer. They confidently stated that the percentage of people who have broadband but not a TV is so unbelievably small that they aren't going to worry about it. Of course, they forget that this percentage is probably rising all the time, not least due to people like me who have no need for a TV now iPlayer and 4OD and stuff have appeared.

EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ ... _tv_1.html

[Mr Q]

In response to Mr Q, I give you Stephen Fry... http://stephenfry.com/blog/?p=44

You know when you visit another country and you see that it spends more money on flowers for its roundabouts than we do, and you think … coo, why don’t we do that? How pretty. How pleasing. What a difference it makes. To spend money for the public good in a way that enriches, gives pleasure, improves the quality of life, that is something. That is a real achievement. It’s only flowers in a roundabout, but how wonderful. Well, we have the equivalent of flowers in the roundabout times a million: the BBC enriches the country in ways we will only discover when it has gone and it is too late to build it up again. We actually can afford the BBC, because we can’t afford not to.

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all. I'm not saying that the BBC should be abolished - there are still areas of media content which aren't going to be provided by the private sector, and for which there is merit in a public broadcaster. But I question, for instance, the need for the BBC to run a ginormous website that duplicates a whole bunch of content - news, blogs, information, etc. - that is readily available elsewhere. The internet should be highly decentralised. Unlike TV or radio, anyone can set up a website at relatively little cost to share their thoughts on the world, provide information on a specialised field, or pretty much anything else. While TV and radio might be subject to 'market failure' - the private sector failing to provide certain types of goods and services - the internet certainly isn't.

The expansion of what 'media' is should mean that the BBC be reduced in scope and scale over time. Yet the opposite is happening. Like any government bureaucracy, it strives for prestige and power - it becomes bigger, launching new channels and services irrespective of whether those services are already available elsewhere. I believe the BBC does offer commercially viable services in many areas - rolling news coverage to me is a great example of that - and the only distinguishing characteristic is that it doesn't have advertising. To my mind, spending £4b a year simply to avoid advertising seems somewhat excessive.

I admit though that I have absolutely no qualms about advertising, and would happily see our ABC come to rely on them (at least in part) for funding their various projects - particularly where these directly compete against the private sector.

I'm going to stay out of your argument (purely because I couldn't argue with an economist about this sort of stuff), but just in case you're not already aware (which you probably are), the licence fee is not unique only to the UK, most European countries operate a similar system, many also using advertising to derive additional income.

Yes - I was reading up on that yesterday. It really does surprise me that such a regime would be so common in Europe. As I say, as a method of revenue collection, it sounds thoroughly inefficient.

I really disagree with this idea that somehow the licence fee acts as a safeguard for the BBC's independence. The BBC is still beholden to the government in terms of what value the licence fee is set at. That approach, in essence, is no different to if the BBC were funded from consolidated revenue, and the government simply set the amount each year that the BBC would receive. If the BBC's independence were as revered as it allegedly is under the licence fee, then any government attempt to reduce funding for the BBC would be fraught with tremendous political danger. I absolutely accept that politicians shouldn't be trusted, but as I say, I'm not convinced that having the licence fee makes all that much of a difference. To my mind, there is limited downside risk in terms of funding cuts.

The only area where the licence fee is likely to have an advantage (from the BBC's perspective anyway) is to the upside. When it comes to issues of funding, the BBC becomes its own lobby group - its interest is in maximising the amount they get. To be fair, this is true of any government bureaucracy. But the licence fee ensures that the BBC doesn't have to compete against schools, hospitals, police, the military, etc. for any new money it seeks to secure. Now while media enthusiasts might like that, the reality is that this approach can lead to skewed funding preferences being exhibited - simply put, the BBC is given special treatment. In the absence of a level playing field for public financing, one might expect to see the BBC somewhat overfunded, while schools, hospitals and the like are likely to be somewhat underfunded from society's point of view.

[cwathen]

Hm, I really do not like the idea of making the TV license as a general tax as like Tim and Mark mentioned the government could use it to hold the BBC to ransom by having total control over what funding they get and could be manipulated into a government mouthpiece which would be disastrous, they need to be as independent as possible if quality is to stay up.

As has been said above, paying the slight overhead of Licensing vs. the potential for the govt to beat the BBC with a stick (see Hutton), would seem to be worth it. Yes its expensive but the BBC seem to force the other channels to up their quality.

The BBC is a public service paid for by public money. Whether that public money takes the form of funds allocated directly by the government, or whether there is a TV Licence to collect public money to pay for the BBC in a separate process is irrelevant. Ultimately the BBC will always be controlled by the government of the day because the only way to secure sufficient funding for it without direct commercial involvement is to force the public to pay for it en-mass, and that can only happen with the support and co-operation of the government.

Even though the BBC is the only broadcaster to get anything from the licence fee, you are forced to pay a TV Licence even if you make no use of their services. Being able to legally demand payment for a given service you might not use in order to be allowed to use a related, but not connected service has only one name - A TAX. And taxes are controlled by the government.

All politicians love the TV Licence. It creates an interface between the government and the state-funded broadcaster to give legitimacy to the opinions and policies of the party in power and also to give a voice to the opinions and policies of the party in opposition. Both main political parties are resigned to the fact that they will oscillate between each other's position and so will both need the BBC in both guises.

But the BBC isn't truly without govenment interference. Bringing things back to the licence fee, the BBC, as the body responsible for administering TV Licencing, should be able to set it at whatever rate they want and whatever framework they want. But they can't. The fee isn't set at what the BBC wants, it's set at the maximum which the government of the day feels people will stand for, and the framework is based on politics and potential to raise funds rather than what the BBC want.

A case in point is the dual tarrif nature of the fee itself. The licencing system still, even in 2008, charges a full tarrif for those modern whizkids with their fangled colour equipment, and offers a reduced tarrif for traditionalists who prefer to watch in shades of grey. This idea was outdated 25 years ago, but it remains to this day. The BBC to their credit tried to modernise things a little while back, charging a full tarrif for people who use digital services, and offering a reduced tarrif to those who were analogue only and couldn't access the newer services. The government, wary that this might slow down their plans to rush through DSO and gain revenue from relicencing the frequencies currently used for analogue, blocked it.

Not long after, the 2nd gulf war came around, the BBC dared to criticise the government in its reports, was damned in a government inquiry, and the resignation of the best director-general in recent years was accepted by a board desperate to get the government off their backs; Greg Dyke was essentially pushed out because he supported a reporter who disagreed with the government.

The BBC's much vaunted neutrality which it apparently enjoys through the licence fee is IMO nowhere near as real as politicians on all sides make out, I can't honestly see it being much worse were it to be funded through general taxation, except being fairer (and cheaper).

[Pete]

But I question, for instance, the need for the BBC to run a ginormous website that duplicates a whole bunch of content - news, blogs, information, etc. - that is readily available elsewhere. The internet should be highly decentralised. Unlike TV or radio, anyone can set up a website at relatively little cost to share their thoughts on the world, provide information on a specialised field, or pretty much anything else. While TV and radio might be subject to 'market failure' - the private sector failing to provide certain types of goods and services - the internet certainly isn't.

I disagree. And here's why. Until a few years back the papers all tried to make their websites "digital editions" with complex propriety interfaces and attempts to charge a fee for their back catalogue and hoping to charge for their normal content. The BBC has undoubtedly the best news website there is, and is permanently free, this therefore meant the newspapers had no hope with their original system and were forced to change to a free advertising funded system with an archive. Whilst the guardian is the only site that can compare to the BBC's it is unlikely that the mail or the express would have sites of the "quality" they have today without the BBC being in the web.

The expansion of what 'media' is should mean that the BBC be reduced in scope and scale over time. Yet the opposite is happening. Like any government bureaucracy, it strives for prestige and power - it becomes bigger, launching new channels and services irrespective of whether those services are already available elsewhere. I believe the BBC does offer commercially viable services in many areas - rolling news coverage to me is a great example of that - and the only distinguishing characteristic is that it doesn't have advertising. To my mind, spending £4b a year simply to avoid advertising seems somewhat excessive.

I admit though that I have absolutely no qualms about advertising, and would happily see our ABC come to rely on them (at least in part) for funding their various projects - particularly where these directly compete against the private sector.

On the advertising front, I think the BBC also helps keep our advertising far more subtle and controlled than it would otherwise be. Admittedly as an outsider you're used to more invasive forms of advertising than we are, but I believe our television is all the better for it.

As for the argument in bold, I say nonsense. The reason being the expansion in traditional media is not full expansion. In television terms there is precious little expansion in quality channels, that is channels that make their own high quality high budget shows. There's an awful lot of channels that repeat (BBC stuff), that import their stuff, that are robotoic (music) and that are complete shit (sluts on sky). Now if you were to take the Sky EPG, remove the cheap shit, the music channels, the shopping channels, the UKTV repeat channels and the import channels you're pretty much left with BBC / ITV / C4 / Five / Sky / MTV and VMTV as the only networks that make shows, and the latter three in particular would have empty schedules if you removed their imports.

In addition, whilst there is plenty "local" radio, most of it is clone stations full of networked shows and identical playlists with only the jingles varying. I've even noticed such things as the "SRH accent" where people on Radio Borders, Clyde 1, Forth 1 and Tay FM can present shows on al the stations using their placeless faux posh scottish accent. Plus on TV with ITV hacking away at its locality its only the BBC left that is trying to fill this market.

Finally with regards to them having popularist shows, if you remove those what are you left with, the community channel and teachers TV, which are boring crap that nobody watches. The reason people watch the highbrow stuff on BBC/C4 is because they stay on or see it advertised during their talent show bilge.

I really disagree with this idea that somehow the licence fee acts as a safeguard for the BBC's independence. The BBC is still beholden to the government in terms of what value the licence fee is set at. ... If the BBC's independence were as revered as it allegedly is under the licence fee, then any government attempt to reduce funding for the BBC would be fraught with tremendous political danger. I absolutely accept that politicians shouldn't be trusted, but as I say, I'm not convinced that having the licence fee makes all that much of a difference. To my mind, there is limited downside risk in terms of funding cuts.

I don't believe its a perfect safeguard, just a safeguard of sorts. This can apply to Chris's post too. Yes the govt still use licence fee settlements to annoy the BBC, however its a settlement, they have a fixed income for several years. What other govt dept has this? They're constantly restructured, have their budgets slashes and are forced to work on preposterous schemes that come to nothing (nhs it). Now whilst this still happens in the BBC, its an internal matter, therefore there is less interference than there would be, and the minor overhead of collection, in my mind, justifies this.

In the absence of a level playing field for public financing, one might expect to see the BBC somewhat overfunded, while schools, hospitals and the like are likely to be somewhat underfunded from society's point of view.

I fail to see what this has to do with the licence fee. If it were direct taxation the whole business of £4b on the BBC vs £100b on the NHS would still apply.

[Mr Q]

I disagree. And here's why. Until a few years back the papers all tried to make their websites "digital editions" with complex propriety interfaces and attempts to charge a fee for their back catalogue and hoping to charge for their normal content. The BBC has undoubtedly the best news website there is, and is permanently free, this therefore meant the newspapers had no hope with their original system and were forced to change to a free advertising funded system with an archive. Whilst the guardian is the only site that can compare to the BBC's it is unlikely that the mail or the express would have sites of the "quality" they have today without the BBC being in the web.

I'm sorry Hyma, but the BBC did not pioneer the provision of 'free' news content on the internet (and of course, it isn't really free - British taxpayers are funding it). I am certain that if the BBC had not bothered with a website, other elements of the mainstream media would still have changed their online business models to something close to what they have now. I do not believe that 'digital editions' would have ever succeeded as a viable format for most newspapers - not when their own paper sales are in decline. When you look around different news websites around the world today, they are quite consistently offering comprehensive online news resources backed not by subscriptions but by advertising.

As to the scope of what the private sector is nowadays providing in terms of online content, I would strongly argue that the BBC's monolithic operation effectively 'crowds out' mass-scale commercial content in the British market. Rather than promoting competition, other players in the market are likely to restrict the level of investment they make in online content because they know they simply cannot compete with the resources that the BBC gets to throw about courtesy of taxation. The BBC does not operate on a level playing field. As a consequence, it runs the rather perverse risk of restricting the diversity of opinion and stifling public debate to some degree.

On the advertising front, I think the BBC also helps keep our advertising far more subtle and controlled than it would otherwise be. Admittedly as an outsider you're used to more invasive forms of advertising than we are, but I believe our television is all the better for it.

And for £4bn, you'd have to hope so.

As for the argument in bold, I say nonsense. The reason being the expansion in traditional media is not full expansion. In television terms there is precious little expansion in quality channels, that is channels that make their own high quality high budget shows. There's an awful lot of channels that repeat (BBC stuff), that import their stuff, that are robotoic (music) and that are complete shit (sluts on sky). Now if you were to take the Sky EPG, remove the cheap shit, the music channels, the shopping channels, the UKTV repeat channels and the import channels you're pretty much left with BBC / ITV / C4 / Five / Sky / MTV and VMTV as the only networks that make shows, and the latter three in particular would have empty schedules if you removed their imports.

Well, let's not go imagining that the BBC's own schedules are entirely filled by its own 'high quality high budget shows'. BBC TV also relies on imports. To quote again from Sir Antony Jay:

• "So what should the BBC not be doing? Do we really want it to enter auctions against the commercial stations for Hollywood movies, American television series and national or international sporting events? If the audience is going to see them on television anyway, why spend their licence money just to enable them to see them on a different channel?"

I would certainly question the wisdom in having the BBC compete to air content that commercial networks would readily broadcast themselves. Again, the BBC does not operate on a level playing field. Where the BBC actively competes against commercial networks, it does so to the disadvantage of its rivals - and in turn the British public.

In addition, whilst there is plenty "local" radio, most of it is clone stations full of networked shows and identical playlists with only the jingles varying. I've even noticed such things as the "SRH accent" where people on Radio Borders, Clyde 1, Forth 1 and Tay FM can present shows on al the stations using their placeless faux posh scottish accent. Plus on TV with ITV hacking away at its locality its only the BBC left that is trying to fill this market.

And I'm happy to concede that perhaps 'local' services are best provided by an organisation like the BBC. It could well be the case that widespread local programming isn't commercially viable. Of course, it might well be the case that it is the BBC's existence which discourages the private sector from seriously investing in local content - again, there is not a level playing field.

Finally with regards to them having popularist shows, if you remove those what are you left with, the community channel and teachers TV, which are boring crap that nobody watches. The reason people watch the highbrow stuff on BBC/C4 is because they stay on or see it advertised during their talent show bilge.

The BBC makes some excellent programmes - there's no question about that. Yet it also makes a lot of shit as well. One of my favourite TV series is Spooks. It is truly a magnificent programme. So, of course when I heard that the BBC had commissioned a spin-off, I was quite excited. I have just watched the first episode of Code 9 this evening, and I have never been so disappointed in a series in my life. It was crap. Had it not been for the fact that it was 'Spooks', I would have switched it off after 20 minutes. It is a true embarrassment to the 'Spooks' brand, and to the BBC. I simply do not know how this appalling concept got off the ground.

The point is the BBC is not some infallible paragon of broadcasting enlightenment. It is just as capable of churning out the same sort of tripe that appears anywhere else. The difference is that the BBC's tripe is being funded by British taxpayers. That is hardly delivering value for money. I certainly don't accept the argument that you need the rubbish so that people will watch the 'highbrow stuff'. By virtue of its status as a public broadcaster, which receives its funding from the public purse, it does not need to chase ratings. If people wish to watch the BBC's content, then that's fine. It doesn't need to overdose them on lightweight crap first in the hope that they'll stick around for something that might just inform or educate.

I really disagree with this idea that somehow the licence fee acts as a safeguard for the BBC's independence. The BBC is still beholden to the government in terms of what value the licence fee is set at. ... If the BBC's independence were as revered as it allegedly is under the licence fee, then any government attempt to reduce funding for the BBC would be fraught with tremendous political danger. I absolutely accept that politicians shouldn't be trusted, but as I say, I'm not convinced that having the licence fee makes all that much of a difference. To my mind, there is limited downside risk in terms of funding cuts.

I don't believe its a perfect safeguard, just a safeguard of sorts. This can apply to Chris's post too. Yes the govt still use licence fee settlements to annoy the BBC, however its a settlement, they have a fixed income for several years. What other govt dept has this? They're constantly restructured, have their budgets slashes and are forced to work on preposterous schemes that come to nothing (nhs it). Now whilst this still happens in the BBC, its an internal matter, therefore there is less interference than there would be, and the minor overhead of collection, in my mind, justifies this.

I still don't understand how funding from general tax revenue would somehow lead to a different outcome. If the BBC is viewed by the public as untouchable, then politicians won't touch it. The degree to which the BBC is independent will always be contingent on the views of the government of the day - irrespective of how it is funded.

In the absence of a level playing field for public financing, one might expect to see the BBC somewhat overfunded, while schools, hospitals and the like are likely to be somewhat underfunded from society's point of view.

I fail to see what this has to do with the licence fee. If it were direct taxation the whole business of £4b on the BBC vs £100b on the NHS would still apply.

Yes, but the point is that you don't have that comparison at the moment. There isn't a debate on the relative merits of spending an additional dollar in public broadcasting over spending it on hospitals because the two aren't funded from the same pool of money. As I say, media enthusiasts might like that - but that's not going to lead to the optimal allocation of public funding and resources.

[Sput]

I haven't bothered to reach much so apologies if it's been covered, but much of the online presence has come about because they're just complimenting their existing material. There's a huge lifestyle section because it's sensible to dump all the recipes and whatnot from the programmes onto the web so people can check. There's a huge news presence because they're basically writing this stuff anyway, so it makes sense to put it online as well.

[Pete]

And for £4bn, you'd have to hope so.

According to their website, ITV's gross revenue is £1b. Taking into account the number of channels/radio stations each provides, I'd say that its an acceptable figure for a massive broadcasting company.

I'm sorry Hyma, but the BBC did not pioneer the provision of 'free' news content on the internet (and of course, it isn't really free - British taxpayers are funding it).

Free at the point of use then, nick, and I never said they pioneered it, simply by providing it at the quality they did, they helped push the other players towards that model and to up their commitment to the web.

Rather than promoting competition, other players in the market are likely to restrict the level of investment they make in online content because they know they simply cannot compete with the resources that the BBC gets to throw about courtesy of taxation.

I disagree, the websites of C4, ITV and the papers are coming into their own. Admittedly I only check the website of the Mail for a giggle but the quality of their site compared to how it was only a few years ago is vastly superior, and I believe said website is becoming more and more popular amongst the Mail's target audience. The guardian certainly can compete with the BBC's website and its hardly the biggest circulation paper backed by News International is it. Not that I'd suggest such a thing but the crappest websites are News Int sites (Sky, Sun, Times), as if they were trying to prove a point. Grasping at straws, perhaps, but heres something that isn't

4OD. It launched, and it became popular. C4, whilst public service, still has to survive in a private sector(ish) world. Yet it was able to get out a product whilst the BBC was still faffing around with internal policitcs on "myBBCplayer" as it was then. Admittedly it was a clone of the BBC's iMP, a product that was four years ahead of its time. ITV, five and Sky now have similar systems but I suspect without the BBC lavishing cash on its folly years ago, they wouldn't have them.

Which brings us onto R&D, what exactly have ITV brought to the innovation market recently apart from new and innovative ways to destroy regionality and bully ofcom?

Well, let's not go imagining that the BBC's own schedules are entirely filled by its own 'high quality high budget shows'. BBC TV also relies on imports. To quote again from Sir Antony Jay:
[snip]
I would certainly question the wisdom in having the BBC compete to air content that commercial networks would readily broadcast themselves. Again, the BBC does not operate on a level playing field. Where the BBC actively competes against commercial networks, it does so to the disadvantage of its rivals - and in turn the British public.

The point is the BBC is not some infallible paragon of broadcasting enlightenment. It is just as capable of churning out the same sort of tripe that appears anywhere else. The difference is that the BBC's tripe is being funded by British taxpayers. That is hardly delivering value for money. I certainly don't accept the argument that you need the rubbish so that people will watch the 'highbrow stuff'.

When was your Antony Jay quote written by the way? Was it in the days of Birt?

Oh and I'm certainly not suggesting the BBC is flawless, its a purveyor of some of the finest shite about (BBC3) but compare the number of British made shows to that of Sky 1. Yes you've got Dream Team, Hex and Mile High. But compare that to the number of home grown shows that the BBC make and they easily outweigh Sky with the ratio of good to bad. Course some people like the crappy shows, and as dire and vapid as BBC3 is, I can't imagine Living running a show like "britains missing top model".

Childrens television in particular should be cited here, with ITV scrapping nearly all its homegrown stuff and five reducing the number greatly, we're left with the BBC and a few token shows that disney and nick make.

Neighbours and The Simpsons are examples of where the BBC has decided that competing is not worth the public money, and perhaps they do occasionally spend too much, but at the same time BBC1 is a mainstream entertainment channel. I think its only right they have the odd blockbuster movie on it to bring in the punters. If nobody watches the channel you don't know about other stuff that they broadcast and such things bring in the viewers. Look at how PBS is regarded in America due to its "pure public service" manner and you see why things like movies and imports are useful.

And regarding value for money, lots of things the govt do are not value for money, ID cards, PFI Hospitals... yet they still do it. In additional Channel 4 is capable of churning out shit too, just because the BBC is public funded doesn't mean its quality control is absolutely impeccable. Even in some of its highest quality shows like doctor who you get a duff episode as I'm sure rowlands would bore you senseless over.

Plus I didn't say it was the shit that was needed. I said it was the popular shows. Doctor Who and Casualty are not exactly highbrow, nor for that matter is spooks. But why shouldn't the BBC broadcast things like that?

Of course, it might well be the case that it is the BBC's existence which discourages the private sector from seriously investing in local content - again, there is not a level playing field.

I presume you've never listened to BBC local radio then. There is certainly a niche that the commercial markets could exploit and indeed used to, but shareholder greed and consolidation has put a stop to this and replaced it with cheap networked tripe.

I still don't understand how funding from general tax revenue would somehow lead to a different outcome. If the BBC is viewed by the public as untouchable, then politicians won't touch it. The degree to which the BBC is independent will always be contingent on the views of the government of the day - irrespective of how it is funded.

I suspect I could use the 1993 Broadcasting Act to argue my point but the fact of the matter is I'm too darned hungry. I might get back to it if nobody else takes up the challenge first.

Oh and regarding IPTV, I really don't know how they'll argue their way out of this one, Freeview was a masterstroke but as mentioned, with homechoice and potentially Virgin moving to IPTV rather than DAB-C it's something that'll have to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

[Mr Q]

And for £4bn, you'd have to hope so.

According to their website, ITV's gross revenue is £1b. Taking into account the number of channels/radio stations each provides, I'd say that its an acceptable figure for a massive broadcasting company.

Yes - but does it actually need to be providing all of those services? Simply providing more channels does not automatically mean that service has actually been improved.

Which brings us onto R&D, what exactly have ITV brought to the innovation market recently apart from new and innovative ways to destroy regionality and bully ofcom?

And what is ITV's incentive to innovate when it can simply rely on the BBC to lead the way? Innovations don't always prove successful - some things take off in the market, and others don't. If ITV can 'free ride' on the BBC's investments, it doesn't need to find out for itself what will and won't work - it's more cost effective for them to simply follow Aunty. It really isn't a surprise that you would observe the BBC (and to a lesser extent C4) leading the field - it simply gives commercial operators scope to impose the downside risk associated with R&D on British taxpayers.

When was your Antony Jay quote written by the way? Was it in the days of Birt?

2008. In fact, the CPS published it just last month. It's available from their website (PDF).

Childrens television in particular should be cited here, with ITV scrapping nearly all its homegrown stuff and five reducing the number greatly, we're left with the BBC and a few token shows that disney and nick make.

And you're surprised at this? I would argue any cuts by ITV and Five have come as a result of the BBC's increased investment. It's what economists call 'crowding out' - new expenditure by the public sector only ends up replacing existing expenditure by the private sector. There is only a limited pool of viewers for childrens' programming. Consequently, when the BBC airs more childrens content, this leaves less viewers for similar programming on other channels. Restrictions on what can be advertised during childrens' programming (assuming it is even allowed in the first place), are also likely to impact the commercial viability of broadcasting kids' shows.

Neighbours and The Simpsons are examples of where the BBC has decided that competing is not worth the public money, and perhaps they do occasionally spend too much, but at the same time BBC1 is a mainstream entertainment channel. I think its only right they have the odd blockbuster movie on it to bring in the punters. If nobody watches the channel you don't know about other stuff that they broadcast and such things bring in the viewers. Look at how PBS is regarded in America due to its "pure public service" manner and you see why things like movies and imports are useful.

No - I really don't see how its useful. If the programmes are going to be shown anyway, why on earth should taxpayers' money be used? All it does is bid up the price for content, resulting in either the BBC buying it or imposing additional costs on commercial rivals. This doesn't make any sense at all. If the content is commercially viable, there is no need for the public sector to be involved.

As for PBS, while I appreciate the funding model it operates on is difficult, I actually think the quality of programming it produces is excellent. It is, to my mind, getting fairly close to an ideal model for public service broadcasting. It focuses on the sort of content that is never going to run on private channels. That is what public service broadcasting should be about - not about chasing ratings, or even trying to convince the public that there are certain types of shows they 'should' be watching.

And regarding value for money, lots of things the govt do are not value for money, ID cards, PFI Hospitals... yet they still do it.

Of course - and I am happy to criticise government waste in all its forms. I simply expect that the same standards for criticising other government programmes and policies are applied to the BBC - that's the least British taxpayers deserve.

[Mr Q]

Oh - and just to bring this back to the licence fee for a moment... I think Sput mentioned that the BBC only spends about £2m in collecting the licence fee. The actual figure is somewhat higher than that. The BBC says it's in the region of £120-135m per annum, while former DG Greg Dyke (who also advocates scrapping the licence fee) has suggested it could be up to £200m p.a. That's hardly a trivial amount.

[Sput]

Ah, in that case I'm way off. I wasn't suggesting it was a small amount though. I was suggesting it's a lot of money to collect money and I was partially wondering how that money was being spent if not on detection R&D. Also, Mr. Q, entertainment is in the BBC's core remit (inform, educate and entertain) so I'd be inclined to include a few films in there.