BBC Presses for Financing, and Its Detractors Cry Foul

Coverage Type: 

BBC PRESSES FOR FINANCING, AND ITS DETRACTORS CRY FOUL
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Eric Pfanner]
The BBC is under more than the usual degree of scrutiny because the license fee of $ 242 a year that every British television owner must pay to finance its operations is under review by the government. While the broadcaster’s royal charter has been renewed for another decade, the level of financing must still be determined. A majority of Britons, in a recent survey commissioned by the BBC, said they supported the license fee. But the review process and the corporation’s plans for spending the money have opened the door to all sorts of critics from outside the BBC and some from within. The BBC has asked the government to increase the license fee, which raises nearly $5.5 billion a year, by 2.3 percentage points more than the annual inflation rate over the next seven years. The BBC says the money is needed to pay for digital television and Internet services as it prepares for an uncertain future in which consumers will be able to choose from a proliferating array of media options. Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, is expected to announce on Wednesday a reorganization aimed at meeting this challenge. “The BBC is going through huge change, moving from traditional linear broadcasting to the challenging and exciting world of interactive on-demand digital media,” Mr. Thompson said this month as the corporation published its annual report. “It means the BBC’s relationship with audiences is also constantly changing.” Signs of change include declining audiences for the BBC’s flagship conventional television channels as viewers turn to digital alternatives or log on to the Internet. Meanwhile, some of the BBC’s plans to move into new areas, particularly in its small but growing commercial activities, have upset some competitors in the private sector.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/business/media/17bbc.html
(requires registration)


BBC Presses for Financing, and Its Detractors Cry Foul