Options
Here we go again! "Scrap the licence fee and privatise the BBC" - The Commentator
carl.waring
Posts: 35,714 Forum Member
✭
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4395/scrap_the_licence_fee_and_privatise_the_bbc
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
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 0
Comments
It even makes some huge errors.
1946? The "BBC licence fee" started a couple of decades earlier and the decision to avoid advertising well established long before TV was even a possibility.
Two satellite broadcasters were never "envisaged". A licence was awarded to BSB and Sky didn't get one. It was only that Murdoch realised he didn't actually need a licence, he could just rent transponders on Astra and start.
They are the "rabid right", similar behaviour like this from the loony left many decades ago kept Labour out of power for 18 years.
Basically that article linked too is nonsensical waffle. Like a religious sermon, there is no logic to it.
Things are different today..., yes I know. But that is not material to the discussion of whether we need a PSB funded by a tax. A discussion the article never touches on.
BSkyBs non-sport programming is hardly PSB. ITV do soaps mostly, CH4 do trash...
I don't rate the BBC executive class but those people are not the BBC.
And the profitability of ITV and Sky proves the BBC and the licence fee does not prevent competition or stifle competition.
And having seen commercial TV in other countries I really think that having to compete against the BBC keeps the standards of ITV and Sky higher than they would otherwise be. And vice versa.
which, of course, refers to the post war resumption of the Television Service and the introduction of the Combined Wireless and Television Licence.
I am reminded of something I read on another forum only the other day, I trust the author won't mind my quoting it here
With that ringing in my ears I wrote this Digital Spy comment - it had little effect!
This is true of course, and all part of the media moguls attempt to dumb down the population and misinform them.
No doubt commercial TV is helpful to keep the BBC relevant, but the BBC also feeds the commercial world with ideas and formats that the BBC has safely demonstrated can actually get an audience.
The BBC take a risk, it get's an audience, ITV copy it.
Of course, the current BBC has not been doing this risk taking... But that's down to the self-serving arses that were running it for the last decade. Many of them have gone.
The licence fee (obviously for radio only in those days) was introduced on November 1, 1922 and cost ten shillings (50p in today's money).I assume the rest of the article is similarly inaccurate.
The article is primarily about BBC television, and the TV industry in the UK generally. The TV Licence was introduced in 1946. If there are other inaccuracies in the article I didn't spot any, but I am no historical expert on the UK tv industry.
BBC supporters may not like the points of view expressed in the article, but there is a fair amount of public support for at least some of them. Anyway, it also sounds like the author thinks the TVL will be around in some form for at least another ten years, hopefully the BBC will continue with the efficiencies they have managed to achieve since the fee was frozen, and focus even more on their genuine PSB remit.
I don't see why not, it's been very popular with its current programming mix, but apparently that point of view is 100% wrong, it will become just another ITV. As the next series of posts will demonstrate......
well, it would have to be more commercial than it is now, that's just good business sense. So expect more mass-market quick-fix programming.
Or have you managed to reinvent the business wheel?
I read an article some time ago (sorry, can't remember the source) which said although many companies would love to advertise in the middle of EE or SCD there is not enough money in the UK economy to support advertising on both the BBC and commercial channels so they would suffer rather than the BBC as there would also be prestige about advertising on the BBC. The current charter runs until 2017 so nothing is likely to change before then and it would require an act of parliament to alter the financing.
I can't get my head around the failure to understand that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
This is a basic issue. ITV serves it's advertisers, serving up viewers to them. That is the very opposite of public service.
A subscription BBC might very well have a similar attitude to the current BBC, but then it wouldn't be a public service either.
Of course, if society considers it doesn't need a public service broadcaster then maybe the assets of the BBC can be disposed of. One way to do that would be to privatise it.
The name might remain but it would not be a public service, merely a private company out to make money, like Royal Mail.
I do think that those people who wish to privatise everything are as mental as those who wish to nationalise everything.
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.
Content would be slashed and the cost of watching TV will rise. Sky for example costs about twice as much as the TV Licence just for the entertainment package.
Where's the advertising magically appearing from to produce enough funding? There aren't advertisers sitting out there with large amounts of unspent advertising money, so there would be a financial impact on ITV, C4 & C5.
If people are stupid enough to want to pay more for less TV, then I'm quiet happen to take their money from them...just send it to my West African bank account.
The very mix you refer to would evaporate, but we know you are made of loads of money so will quite happily pay twice the cost of the licence fee to maintain the mix.
It's basically a spite-based social philosophy we are living through.
And it's all coming from the new right-wing, a very spiteful group of people.
Sky has Sky Arts, they run documentaries. They could keep the BBC charter, just raise money differently.
I am quite sure even the least watched BBC programme still gets many more viewers than some of those on the various channels on the Sky platform that depend on advertising to make it on air.
I'd be made of more money if I didn't have to pay a poxy "licence fee" just for the right to turn on my television.
Due to be scrapped I believe? At least one of their two Arts channels are.
Correct, there were two Sky Arts channels, there will now be one. Hopefully they will do some consolidating and focus on more of the worthwhile stuff, with fewer repeats than at present across the two SA channels.
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.
You have thus confirmed you would the destroy the mix, by hiving off the Arts to another channel, which is being funded how? And you what are you replacing the gaps in the scheduling with, the testcard?
And most people would end up with less money and less TV...
Here's what Sky produces for £21.50 a month or a mere £258 a year..which is loose change to you.
Sky 1 & 2, Sky Atlantic, Sky Arts and Sky News then it sinks to Sky Living & Sky LivingIT and scraping the barrel Sky Poker.
As for the schedules...their premier entertainment channel at peak time seems to consist of a diet of The Simpsons & A Prat I'm Board...nightly!
But in a recent House of Commons debate MP after MP on the government side got up and expressed outrage that the BBC made successful programmes people wanted to watch.