also volunteers working for the BBC, LOL do you idiots have any notion of the skills required to make even studio based show like Watchdog, never mind a Line of Duty or a Doctor Who. It would be impossible to put together a year round scheulde based on the efforts of volunteers, and rest assured the UK would very quickly suffer a skills drain, as the professions leave the UK for areas of the world, where they can earn money.
Shh, don't use the word 'idiots' you might get in to trouble
You have to remember in this wonderful perfect free world there would be people who would happily give up their entire you just to film a drama for no pay. Perhaps if they're lucky they could get a credit on Facebook or a link to their website!
You can never tell nowadays with debates regarding the licence fee, advertising and public service broadcasting whether someone is being satirical or truly believe what they are saying.
Judging by the first post, I think this may be more like Tinky Winky's Law... :o
You have to remember in this wonderful perfect free world there would be people who would happily give up their entire you just to film a drama for no pay. Perhaps if they're lucky they could get a credit on Facebook or a link to their website!
to be fair, im pretty sure that is how YouTube works
This is, sadly, a growing phenomenon of degrading Vocational skills.
A lot of managers (usually with MBA's) think that anyone can do any job, as long as there is a written "procedure" in place.
I have been in such work places before, if only briefly, ive always seen it as a lazy persons guide to training. Dont get me wrong my current job is shambles, we have recently switched to some new software, and it is more than clear to me, my boss cant use it half as well as I can, as I am the only one who has ever used it for any time, and when asked if he wants me to write some working instructions he just says no.
Obviously the OP imagines anyone can walk in off the street and suddenly be a fully qualified and skilled camera operator, or rigging electrician, or sound recordist.
to be fair I dont know if business people believe that, even if they think the job can be done cheaper by someone else, im sure they know the new person wont be fully qualified of fully skilled, they are just happy to trade away that, so they can pay them less.
The only problem I've ever had with the TV license is the stupid idea that you're paying for the TV, not the content. Other than that, it's perfectly OK and IMVHO cheap relative to other content providers.
Personally, I would like to see content providers and delivery networks (both via Satellite TV and the Net) separated. To my mind, they're two very different businesses and the ever-growing issue of exclusive content across multiple providers is, potentially, going to bust a lot of wallets and create oligopolies. The simile is that cinemas are independent from movie companies (yes, I appreciate they get heavy duty pressure from movie companies). It took antitrust legislation many years ago to make that happen and, by extending choice and clamping down on unfair practice we've benefitted as a result.
The answer is for the content providers to negotiate with the delivery networks for the best prices for their product (note, not plural). Failure to agree hurts both sides. That will make the delivery networks highly competitive - very good news for customers and force the content providers to be reasonable (ultimately they'll come to charged based on ratings) - also good news for customers. The delivery networks can differentiate not just on price but also on depth and style of catalogue, target marketing, efficient systems etc. Those that flood their programming with adverts are going to find themselves at a disadvantage to those that don't. And yes, it makes perfect sense for phone companies to step up, no problem with them having a second string to their bow (phone charges, mobile charges) - so long as they pull out of content production. That, in turn, will improve delivery.
Years ago you used to be able to see everything that was broadcast, for the price of a TV license. Now, you need to pay a fair bit more to do that. I have no problem with the issue of paying a bit more (we can argue whats fair) as there's so much more out there, but I do have a problem when paying a fair bit more still doesn't get you access to all content.
The latest news that the BBC are not going to be allowed to air similar shows at the same time as ITV brings home the reasons why we must over turn the current system as soon as possible.
The money free party / free world charter would abolish those pesky tories without giving Labor and SNP power to plunge us into more debt. I understand that is far too much for some of you to comprehend at this time since you've been used to this system since a young age and are afraid of change, so there are alternatives. There must be.
Crowdfunding is another option not mentioned thus far. If you loved Malcolm in the middle, Strictly, Coronation Street or Eastenders (or whatever your fave programs are) would you donate 1 or 2 pound here and there? One advantage of this is, the richer upperclass would donate more, so we would end up with more higher brow programs being commissioned. That said, there are a lot of poor working class who would throw 50p at Jeremy Kyle. Probably more than enough to keep it on air. >:(
In addition they could use volunteers (yes people volunteer for lots of things from office admin, to farming) to help with sound, camera, or even actors.
Right you must be trolling, or be quite young and naive, or just plain naive. Have you been reading and listening to Russell Brand and his bollockly bulls*it.
Here talking of Russell Brand his career has been in decline since his year of telling us of his revolution. Seems that his revolutionary spirit ended a few months as the General Election was over and the media would no longer listen to or printing his six-form politics (thus I have my doubts he truly believed and it was all for publicity, especially how with a week to go he tells his 'followers' to go against his 'don't vote' campaign and to go vote Labour, but only after the deadline for registering to vote had passed).
A monetary based system has been the dominate force since the days of the Roman Empire (and there is inconclusive evidence that a form of pecuniary based system has been used before this).
Hell even the communist/socialist & fascist countries of the 20th centuary still kept a currency based system, so sorry to burst your bubble starry_rune but no matter what type of governmental system comes or goes there is always going to be money.
By the way starry_rune, your not Russell Brand are you?
Right you must be trolling, or be quite young and naive, or just plain naive. Have you been reading and listening to Russell Brand and his bollockly bulls*it.
Here talking of Russell Brand his career has been in decline since his year of telling us of his revolution. Seems that his revolutionary spirit ended a few months as the General Election was over and the media would no longer listen to or printing his six-form politics (thus I have my doubts he truly believed and it was all for publicity, especially how with a week to go he tells his 'followers' to go against his 'don't vote' campaign and to go vote Labour, but only after the deadline for registering to vote had passed).
A monetary based system has been the dominate force since the days of the Roman Empire (and there is inconclusive evidence that a form of pecuniary based system has been used before this).
Hell even the communist/socialist & fascist countries of the 20th centuary still kept a currency based system, so sorry to burst your bubble starry_rune but no matter what type of governmental system comes or goes there is always going to be money.
By the way starry_rune, your not Russell Brand are you?
That is because the mainstream media are backed by government who do not want anyone becoming wise to these sorts of movements. It will push them out of power as soon as people have woken up.
The principles of a resource based economy are very interesting and worth researching.
That is because the mainstream media are backed by government who do not want anyone becoming wise to these sorts of movements. It will push them out of power as soon as people have woken up.
And with that paragraph you go from someone with an 'alternative' political outlook, who is using a completely unrelated internet forum to try and softly promote your policital outlook, to a conspiracy theory nutter.
That is because the mainstream media are backed by government who do not want anyone becoming wise to these sorts of movements. It will push them out of power as soon as people have woken up.
The principles of a resource based economy are very interesting and worth researching.
That will be why Brand got so much coverage at the time then ? the broadcasters all bending to the governments will ?
I would pay anything below £145 to not have anything BBC related on my screen. One day The Guardian will have their own channel anyway. BBC is just a feudal tax.
And that is as you know a load of old tripe, do you think if the BBC went they would axe the Licence Fee ? no they wouldn't they would change its name to a Broadcasting tax and it would all go to the Treasury
Comments
Shh, don't use the word 'idiots' you might get in to trouble
You have to remember in this wonderful perfect free world there would be people who would happily give up their entire you just to film a drama for no pay. Perhaps if they're lucky they could get a credit on Facebook or a link to their website!
Judging by the first post, I think this may be more like Tinky Winky's Law...
I have been in such work places before, if only briefly, ive always seen it as a lazy persons guide to training. Dont get me wrong my current job is shambles, we have recently switched to some new software, and it is more than clear to me, my boss cant use it half as well as I can, as I am the only one who has ever used it for any time, and when asked if he wants me to write some working instructions he just says no.
to be fair I dont know if business people believe that, even if they think the job can be done cheaper by someone else, im sure they know the new person wont be fully qualified of fully skilled, they are just happy to trade away that, so they can pay them less.
Personally, I would like to see content providers and delivery networks (both via Satellite TV and the Net) separated. To my mind, they're two very different businesses and the ever-growing issue of exclusive content across multiple providers is, potentially, going to bust a lot of wallets and create oligopolies. The simile is that cinemas are independent from movie companies (yes, I appreciate they get heavy duty pressure from movie companies). It took antitrust legislation many years ago to make that happen and, by extending choice and clamping down on unfair practice we've benefitted as a result.
The answer is for the content providers to negotiate with the delivery networks for the best prices for their product (note, not plural). Failure to agree hurts both sides. That will make the delivery networks highly competitive - very good news for customers and force the content providers to be reasonable (ultimately they'll come to charged based on ratings) - also good news for customers. The delivery networks can differentiate not just on price but also on depth and style of catalogue, target marketing, efficient systems etc. Those that flood their programming with adverts are going to find themselves at a disadvantage to those that don't. And yes, it makes perfect sense for phone companies to step up, no problem with them having a second string to their bow (phone charges, mobile charges) - so long as they pull out of content production. That, in turn, will improve delivery.
Years ago you used to be able to see everything that was broadcast, for the price of a TV license. Now, you need to pay a fair bit more to do that. I have no problem with the issue of paying a bit more (we can argue whats fair) as there's so much more out there, but I do have a problem when paying a fair bit more still doesn't get you access to all content.
It's a winner for Radio...
Right you must be trolling, or be quite young and naive, or just plain naive. Have you been reading and listening to Russell Brand and his bollockly bulls*it.
Here talking of Russell Brand his career has been in decline since his year of telling us of his revolution. Seems that his revolutionary spirit ended a few months as the General Election was over and the media would no longer listen to or printing his six-form politics (thus I have my doubts he truly believed and it was all for publicity, especially how with a week to go he tells his 'followers' to go against his 'don't vote' campaign and to go vote Labour, but only after the deadline for registering to vote had passed).
A monetary based system has been the dominate force since the days of the Roman Empire (and there is inconclusive evidence that a form of pecuniary based system has been used before this).
Hell even the communist/socialist & fascist countries of the 20th centuary still kept a currency based system, so sorry to burst your bubble starry_rune but no matter what type of governmental system comes or goes there is always going to be money.
By the way starry_rune, your not Russell Brand are you?
That is because the mainstream media are backed by government who do not want anyone becoming wise to these sorts of movements. It will push them out of power as soon as people have woken up.
The principles of a resource based economy are very interesting and worth researching.
And with that paragraph you go from someone with an 'alternative' political outlook, who is using a completely unrelated internet forum to try and softly promote your policital outlook, to a conspiracy theory nutter.
Needless to say I am out of this debate.
That will be why Brand got so much coverage at the time then ? the broadcasters all bending to the governments will ?
And that is as you know a load of old tripe, do you think if the BBC went they would axe the Licence Fee ? no they wouldn't they would change its name to a Broadcasting tax and it would all go to the Treasury