Options
Why is the radio free to listen to?
![[Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/38b59d2af3bbfa1fd5e6becdfe5d9e44.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0 Forum Member
I’ve often wondered why the radio is free to listen to? However, if you want to watch live TV you have to pay a tv licence.
Also, you can listen to BBC radio stations free of charge, but you have to pay to watch BBC tv channels.
Also, you can listen to BBC radio stations free of charge, but you have to pay to watch BBC tv channels.
0
Comments
When I was young it wasn't free-but I think this site will interest you. https://www.radiolicence.org.uk/
And it cost extra to have. Radio in your car
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/oct/11/bbc.broadcasting1
And remember the the British Broadcasting Compony was very commercial
being set up to rapidly monetise the new technology …..
It was John Reith who saw the public purpose and lobbied to make the company he led
Gain a Royal Charter.
Commercial radio is of course subsidised by advertising and sponsorship, while community stations use a mix of funding, fundraising, advertising and sponsorship.
The BBC states: "The licence fee allows us to provide a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you.
There was a radio telegraphy receive licence payable to the GPO in the 1920s when radio was established by the British Broadcasting Company.
The BBC Yearbook 1931 states that "The number of radio licences in force on September 30th 1930 was 3,195,553, representing about 12,000,000 listeners, or roughly every second home in the country"
First broadcast on the medium wave band of the British Broadcasting Company station 2LO in London was on 14th November 1922. Radio broadcasting will be 100 years old next November 2022.
On 1st January 1927 the British Broadcasting Company becomes the British Broadcasting Corporation, when it is granted a Royal Charter.
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/licencefee
Because these days in the UK the DJs also work for free
Perhaps the BBC should reintroduce a radio licence for those without a TVL? It would be nigh on impossible to police, so easy to evade for those who strongly objected to it, but would be a solution for those who wished to contribute, whilst providing extra income for the cash strapped BBC?
Can you remember if, prior to the introduction of the TVL, blind people received a discount on the radio licence as they do today for TVL's?
Currently, they receive a 50% discount, prior to this they received a mere £1.25 discount!
I was once told that the discount of £1.25 was to reflect the cost of the then radio licence, presumably when the radio licence was abolished, the discount continued, but was never uprated.
It seems odd to think that severely sight impaired people received something for free that they were able to enjoy in the same way as sighted people, yet effectively had to pay the full cost of a TVL for something that they were unable to fully appreciate.
Seems they were free for the blind. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1969/oct/15/broadcasting-licences-concession-for
Only if the listener of BBC output has a TVL. Those without a TVL do effectively get it for free, though I take your point that someone ends up paying for it.
Thanks, so it does look like it's correct that blind people who needed a TVL, had the cost of a radio licence deducted from the cost of their TVL when they were introduced
The radio licence must have been £1.25 when it was abolished. It was never uprated until the late nineties after the 50% off rule was introduced.
Technically, when the radio licence was abolished, the BBC could have scrapped the discount because a payment for receiving radio was no longer due, this would have looked a trifle mean spirited though!
Your thread got me wondering something else about the TVL, but I created a thread in 'Broadcasting' to keep this on topic:
Does anyone know the answer to this question as to whether colour TV licenses technically exist or not?
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2420208/do-colour-tv-licenses-actually-exist#latest
I'd rather pay for non-advertising channels, by subscription (e.g. Calm Radio) or by contribution (e.g. Serenade Radio).
I would probably be right in thinking that you have products or services which have been advertised somewhere, even if you don't use the means of delivery. They will have a small percentage in the cost of aquiring them included for advertising.
Your point about louder, shouty, insistent, advert breaks within a programme is quite true imo; the advertiser wants you to buy into what it is.
I personally don't mind adverts on the radio. It sometimes helps the presenters of talk stations, so that they can have a break between callers/debates etc too.
Also adverts fund the station so I/we can keep listening for free.
They do however, annoy me on TV.
At the risk of annoying listeners/viewers into not buying into the product/service advertised?
In the USA, adverts which mention a telephone number do so at least four times in a spot, just to get it to sink in.
I’ve found myself feeling the same. Bauer in particular seems to have endless, badly placed ads. Classic FM used to have ads in keeping with the overall station sound but the way Global sells advertising across the portfolio means that is no longer the case and the relaxing sound is interrupted by shouty ads for the National Lottery.
There are other models, like Times Radio or the US ‘member supported’ style, as well as subscription.
I pay for a classical music station and am trialling another. Well worth it.
Wouldn't it be easier to pay for Apple Music or Spotify? I am not sure whether the music you listen to is on there though. I don't pay a sub for music or radio. Usually I listen to the radio or use Youtube with adverts.
I also understand what you mean about a Classical music radio station having "shouty" adverts. However, the same could be said about Smooth radio. It is a relaxing music station, but has the adverts you mentioned, due to the fact it being owned by Global.
Plenty of classical stations (or other genres) around the world of you don't like adverts or don't want to pay a subscription-NPR ones in the USA for example.Nothing wrong with supporting a station you particularly like with cash donations if you want though,it can make you feel more a part of it.
I have premium music services (for free at the moment), but the range of playlists can be overwhelming, they are of variable quality, and sometimes they have a limited number of tracks and the automated 'similar' tracks are not particularly well chosen by the algorithm. Specialist radio stations tend to have someone with a deep love for the genre choosing every track (see Radio Paradise, for example).
In short, when I get into work or want to relax in the evening I like to just turn on the radio, not be faced with a choice. It's also nice to have some (limited!) presenter interaction which again is absent from premium music services. I can afford to pay something towards these stations and want to support them. I subscribe, for example, to Whisperings Solo Piano Radio, knowing that most of the money goes directly to the artists.
@steepdrop is right that the community aspect can be important - I don't feel any community in Amazon Music! In Radio Paradise and some of the classical stations there is a sense that you're part of something that is beyond just the music. Primordial Radio is a superb UK example of this. UK radio doesn't make much of this, perhaps because there aren't (yet) many truly specialist stations.
Indeed - I don't listen to Smooth, but it's true across the board.
But, if you don't pay for a tv licence, then you are getting BBC content for free.
Which is a minority of people who actually don't own a tv set for receiving linear tv.