i think we should always be open to the idea that the BBC can be reformed and the licence fee can be removed/reduced, and we should always be looking at the function of the BBC and whether it is still relevant.
should the bbc be driven to make more commercially aware decisions and be allowed to be rewarded for these in order to reduce their reliance on the LF? i certainly think so.
i don't think the BBC should be privatised, but i do feel as though it should compete equally with it's commercial competitors who have faced a difficult period in terms of increased competition and reduced revenues.
We already have a commercial sector.
We already have a commercial sector.
We already have a commercial sector.
The BBC has been moved towards commercial thinking for years, to the clear detriment of the programming. Just as happened with Royal Mail as it was increasingly operated in a commercial manner the service degraded.
Royal Mail will now serve anyone but the public.
I don't think you understand the concept of public service.
Can you even give a reason as to how what you propose would serve the public?
Or is it just an ideological thing? (yes is the answer)
My point was the decision to avoid advertising was taken with the introduction of the radio licence. The article suggests it was only with TV that they decided that.
Now I don't mind people expressing an opinion as long as it is based on actual facts. However, this never seems to happen with any "anti-LF/BBC" arguments.
The above article is a case in point because, in the entire article there is not one single mention of the very nature of the BBC; Public Service Broadcasting. No mention that many, many other countries believe that PSB is fundamental requirement of society and that the UK is not the only country that has a TVL. I wonder why? :D
Ahh the commentator for those who think the Mail and Telegraph are just not right wing enough.
There must come a time when some of you people realise you are a minority voice pissing in the wind?
The Telegraph poll was dissected and flushed down the loo as a meaningless piece of research...but if you wish to pay double what you pay for a TV Licence...that's up to you.
It depends in part on whether some companies would shift their advertising budgets towards more TV spots with all those extra viewers watching ads. TV adverts are generally considered to be among the most effective, and they can often be targeted towards the likely demographic of a programme. And some viewers might stop automatically making the BBC their go-to channel (for things like news) once it has ads like all the others. So, ratings on the other channels might increase, meaning they could charge more for their ad time.
And the additional money would go too....bosses pay
My point was the decision to avoid advertising was taken with the introduction of the radio licence. The article suggests it was only with TV that they decided that.
I admit I didn't more than the first paragraph or so
I'm tired of such stuff, I'm tired of those who seek to mis-lead and wish to spread their own ill-informed b*ll*cks.
The BBC has been moved towards commercial thinking for years, to the clear detriment of the programming. Just as happened with Royal Mail as it was increasingly operated in a commercial manner the service degraded.
Royal Mail will now serve anyone but the public.
I don't think you understand the concept of public service.
Can you even give a reason as to how what you propose would serve the public?
Or is it just an ideological thing? (yes is the answer)
the BBC should be allowed to generate revenue through:
making programmes for other broadcasters.
auction content to the commercial sector.
make iplayer a premium rather than a free service.
Limit investment in non UK content (excluding foreign language content).
the BBC should be allowed to generate revenue through:
making programmes for other broadcasters.
auction content to the commercial sector.
make iplayer a premium rather than a free service.
Limit investment in non UK content (excluding foreign language content).
Why do those things? How do they serve the public?
That "to do" list is what a private firm would do to maximise revenue and provide a nice profit to shareholders. (Which is the whole point of private firms, I'm not criticising private firms.)
You seem to be trying to make the BBC a self-serving organisation, like a private firm, where the public are there to be exploited.
It's clear to me that Conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to society, they just don't perceive it. They are inherently me me me.
To them society doesn't exist, so why provide a service to society? The BBC as a public service is an alien concept to these people.
What difference would it make if the BBC was privatized? Anyone have any ideas?
That depends what you mean by 'privatised' -
vast tracts of the BBC's functions, core and otherwise, have already been 'privatised' - i.e. those activities are now run solely to make a profit -
since Birt carried out Thatcher's instructions - and the ethos of those involved has been turned on its head.
All that hasn't been 'privatised', as far as I understand the current situation (it's decades now since I was a part of the Corporation),
is the editorial control, and its chain of command, of what we see on our screens and hear on our radios.
If that were to go, then the audience would be the losers and some investing capitalists would gain financially, benefitting from the historical legacy
of the 'brand' BBC which, by right, belongs to the accumulated Licence payers over 90 or so years.
Ultimately, that Body Incorporated by Royal Charter would cease to exist; if the asset of the 'Brand' was sold to raise cash for the Treasury
then those commercially exploiting the 'brand' would have no obligation to the audiences, present and future.
British Broadcasting Corporation (1926 - 20??) R.I.P.
A division of 21st Century-Fox, trading as 'The BBC', would have nothing whatsoever to do with a history of service to the British people.
The last thing we need is more commerical televison after seeing the state ITV, Channel 5 and incresingly Sky (thanks to BT) are in...
Exactly, the reason is many people (mainly the under 30s) are so hooked on Mobiles & social media, they watch very little TV. There is certainly no room for more commercial channels, & less people in general are watching TV - that leaves no future for the BBC - or close down the commercial channels - there is no room for both these days:D
What have any of your points got to do with public service broadcasting?
well maybe PSB is simply not needed in this day and age?
you could argue that with the above, the bbc would still provide a public service, but market forces would determine what services they would need to fund and what could be funded by the private sector.
or an increase in revenue would allow a reduction in LF investment and this benefits the public.
Maybe public service broadcasting is needed more than ever today to offer an alternative to capitalist greed motivated broadcasting.
Don't fall for the right-wing cr*p that 'competition' always benefits the consumer!
i don't, and as i've said generally the idea of the bbc i am in favour of. At it's best provides the quality and variety that others don't (news, current affairs, factual, minority interest sport, comedy).
but given that it has a higher TV budget than ITV, C4 and Five i'd expect it to better.
.... but given that it has a higher TV budget than ITV, C4 and Five ....
In the most recent financial year for which the BBC has reported, the Corporation spent just under £2.5bn on all it's television services -
'content', 'distribution' and 'support' [BBC Full Financial Statements 2012/13, page 8].
Is this what you mean by 'budget'?
Where do I find the corresponding figures for
ITV plc wrt the English and Welsh franchises
UTV wrt the Norther Ireland franchise
STV wrt the Scottish franchise
Channel Four Television Corporation wrt its single PSB channel
Northern & Shell wrt its single PSB channel?
I'd quite like to verify them and add them up, as you must surely have done!
You will see that income is 5.3 million GBP from subscriptions , 3.5 million GBP from adverts ,
2.7 million GBP BBC finds applied to TV and about 722 thousand GBP " other" ...
Spend is at p 167 ..
Sport films 1.7 bn
BBC one 848 m
Itv1. 814m
Other digital 691 m. This is things like UKTV discovery sky 1 etc
Ch4 492 m
BBC two 310 m
Other BBC 232m
Other PSB portfolio 250 m. This is e 4 itv234 etc
Ch fve 192m
Points to note all BBC is less that itv1ch4ch5
... (5 BBC 24/7 streams versus three comm PSB )
Comments
We already have a commercial sector.
We already have a commercial sector.
We already have a commercial sector.
The BBC has been moved towards commercial thinking for years, to the clear detriment of the programming. Just as happened with Royal Mail as it was increasingly operated in a commercial manner the service degraded.
Royal Mail will now serve anyone but the public.
I don't think you understand the concept of public service.
Can you even give a reason as to how what you propose would serve the public?
Or is it just an ideological thing? (yes is the answer)
My point was the decision to avoid advertising was taken with the introduction of the radio licence. The article suggests it was only with TV that they decided that.
Ahh the commentator for those who think the Mail and Telegraph are just not right wing enough.
A fig leaf like it's sister news channel. Both will be dumped or cut back when Uncle Rupert gets his hands on all of Sky.
The Telegraph poll was dissected and flushed down the loo as a meaningless piece of research...but if you wish to pay double what you pay for a TV Licence...that's up to you.
And, on the same thread, there was another survey when the result was very different when those questioned were educated about the bigger picture.
Did you miss that?
That's a fair point, there's already hundreds of commercial channels out there - there probably don't need to be anymore than there is.
Not only that, but expect the current commercial broadcasters to be against the BBC chasing their advertising revenue.
And the additional money would go too....bosses pay
Answer: Those who benefit financially by creating a society in which variance from their norm is not tolerated.
Think about who admired a ginger haired woman who is now before the beak, and what her role, and that of her mates, was in suppressing non-conformism.
I'm tired of such stuff, I'm tired of those who seek to mis-lead and wish to spread their own ill-informed b*ll*cks.
the BBC should be allowed to generate revenue through:
making programmes for other broadcasters.
auction content to the commercial sector.
make iplayer a premium rather than a free service.
Limit investment in non UK content (excluding foreign language content).
Why do those things? How do they serve the public?
That "to do" list is what a private firm would do to maximise revenue and provide a nice profit to shareholders. (Which is the whole point of private firms, I'm not criticising private firms.)
You seem to be trying to make the BBC a self-serving organisation, like a private firm, where the public are there to be exploited.
It's clear to me that Conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to society, they just don't perceive it. They are inherently me me me.
To them society doesn't exist, so why provide a service to society? The BBC as a public service is an alien concept to these people.
vast tracts of the BBC's functions, core and otherwise, have already been 'privatised' - i.e. those activities are now run solely to make a profit -
since Birt carried out Thatcher's instructions - and the ethos of those involved has been turned on its head.
All that hasn't been 'privatised', as far as I understand the current situation (it's decades now since I was a part of the Corporation),
is the editorial control, and its chain of command, of what we see on our screens and hear on our radios.
If that were to go, then the audience would be the losers and some investing capitalists would gain financially, benefitting from the historical legacy
of the 'brand' BBC which, by right, belongs to the accumulated Licence payers over 90 or so years.
Ultimately, that Body Incorporated by Royal Charter would cease to exist; if the asset of the 'Brand' was sold to raise cash for the Treasury
then those commercially exploiting the 'brand' would have no obligation to the audiences, present and future.
British Broadcasting Corporation (1926 - 20??) R.I.P.
A division of 21st Century-Fox, trading as 'The BBC', would have nothing whatsoever to do with a history of service to the British people.
Exactly, the reason is many people (mainly the under 30s) are so hooked on Mobiles & social media, they watch very little TV. There is certainly no room for more commercial channels, & less people in general are watching TV - that leaves no future for the BBC - or close down the commercial channels - there is no room for both these days:D
well maybe PSB is simply not needed in this day and age?
you could argue that with the above, the bbc would still provide a public service, but market forces would determine what services they would need to fund and what could be funded by the private sector.
or an increase in revenue would allow a reduction in LF investment and this benefits the public.
Don't fall for the right-wing cr*p that 'competition' always benefits the consumer!
pretty unlikely tho'!
i don't, and as i've said generally the idea of the bbc i am in favour of. At it's best provides the quality and variety that others don't (news, current affairs, factual, minority interest sport, comedy).
but given that it has a higher TV budget than ITV, C4 and Five i'd expect it to better.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Conducting a poll asking people if they'd rather not have to pay their bills is only ever going to get one answer.
'content', 'distribution' and 'support' [BBC Full Financial Statements 2012/13, page 8].
Is this what you mean by 'budget'?
Where do I find the corresponding figures for
ITV plc wrt the English and Welsh franchises
UTV wrt the Norther Ireland franchise
STV wrt the Scottish franchise
Channel Four Television Corporation wrt its single PSB channel
Northern & Shell wrt its single PSB channel?
I'd quite like to verify them and add them up, as you must surely have done!
C4 about 400m
Five about 250m
I conseed that the 4 and 5 numbers are industry estimates.
If you look at revenues at page 160 ++ of the ofcom report
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr13/UK_2.pdf
You will see that income is 5.3 million GBP from subscriptions , 3.5 million GBP from adverts ,
2.7 million GBP BBC finds applied to TV and about 722 thousand GBP " other" ...
Spend is at p 167 ..
Sport films 1.7 bn
BBC one 848 m
Itv1. 814m
Other digital 691 m. This is things like UKTV discovery sky 1 etc
Ch4 492 m
BBC two 310 m
Other BBC 232m
Other PSB portfolio 250 m. This is e 4 itv234 etc
Ch fve 192m
Points to note all BBC is less that itv1ch4ch5
... (5 BBC 24/7 streams versus three comm PSB )
And each iof those is less than sport films ,,,
You might also like to read the lords debate from Thursday
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131128-0001.htm#st_80