Labour commits to keeping BBC licence fee

[Retro]

Bad news if you wanted to see it abolished. Personally, I'd have wanted it to be an optional subscription which I would have taken as I watch a lot of their content, even with a Sky subscription. It doesn't seem right to me that one should be forced to pay the BBC just to watch other channels and is an outdated way of funding it. I never want to see ads on it though, regardless of funding model.

Labour will support the BBC licence fee, Keir Starmer has pledged, in stark contrast to the years of Conservative opposition to the funding model.

The levy of £159 a year on households with a television used to receive live broadcasts (or watch BBC iPlayer) raises £3.2bn annually for the BBC and the Welsh channel S4C.

The number of households that pay the fee is declining and countries around the world are phasing out their television licence fees. Conservative ministers have spent the past 14 years reducing the broadcaster’s licence fee income, which resulted in a 30% budget cut in real terms. As culture secretary, Nadine Dorries sought to abolish the licence fee entirely when the broadcaster’s royal charter expires in 2027.

Keir Starmer commits to keeping BBC licence fee after years of Tory hostility

Broadcaster suffered severe cuts under Conservatives, which reneged on inflation-linked deal

www.theguardian.com

 

[Astro What]

Somebody has to be willing to pay. Either it's fully government funded (which the general population pays for even if they don't utilize it) or subscribers pay for their use of it.
There is never a "free lunch".
It sounds like though the model used is unique to the UK?
I know that here in the US, companies pay for frequencies to do OTA broadcasts on (licensing) and it seems to work well.

 

[Retro]

Indeed there's no free lunch and I believe the funding model here in sunny Blighty is indeed unique, but it seems that other countries do have something along these lines according to that Guardian article:

The number of households that pay the fee is declining and countries around the world are phasing out their television licence fees.

 

[Astro What]

Indeed there's no free lunch and I believe the funding model here in sunny Blighty is indeed unique, but it seems that other countries do have something along these lines according to that Guardian article:

Yeah, in the US, the license fee is paid by the broadcaster, not the recipient or the government. Now, this is for OTA. The "subscriber" pays for it by being forced to watch commercials.

 

[Retro]

At least there's no ads on the BBC, such a blessed relief.

 

[Astro What]

At least there's no ads on the BBC, such a blessed relief.

And that's where the financial support has to be made up in another method. As commented, there is no free lunch.
Even several of the streaming media providers do this. You can pay a lower tier and deal with adds, or pay more (which offsets their loss of ad income) for an ad-free experience.
As you know, that is even present in the forum/website world.