Options
BBC Next for takeover?
![[Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2bbb3ecb9e689776af4bd7bc627e8d3e.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,979 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Oh dear, just on the today programme,Murders bid to buy all shares in Sky will now be referred to Jeremy Hunt, who the reporter said was more easy about the takeover.
But Ofcom must give a ruling, and who appoints Ofcom?
Vince was honest, but very inexperienced about stings, the new honey trap.
Who does Murders want next,BBC/ITV.
But Ofcom must give a ruling, and who appoints Ofcom?
Vince was honest, but very inexperienced about stings, the new honey trap.
Who does Murders want next,BBC/ITV.
0
Comments
It can't help.
So with a track record of disrespect to FIFA officials helping lose the World Cup bid, having disrespected Jeremy hunt will that now weaken their influence to block any Sky takeover.
He will be pushing for a case to be made for the licence fee to be axed and voluntary subscription to become the funding mechanism for the BBC. Because of course, the company he hopes to own will push to become the administrator of subscriptions to the BBC, so Murdoch will become the gatekeeper of the BBC. Murdoch likes paywalls, placing the BBC and its online news content behind a paywall would be a massive boost towards the realisation of his paywall ideology. Scary, isn't it. Jeremy Hunt, the Tories or the EC won't stop him.
Either that or he wants the end of the BBC.
Robert Peston's scoop and the BBC's reporting of it will have damaged the BBC and weaken the case for the opposition too, but at least the BBC is prepared to report the story, knowing the damage it could do to the corporation, so I respect them for staying impartial.
Expect Murdoch to get his way.
Sky is a nice money earner for News Corp that gives little back to the market it services. The BBC is an obstacle in it's aim to earn even more money from the UK population, and that's why Murdoch wants rid of it, but getting rid of the BBC would only benefit Murdoch himself. We would all get shafted.
I'd have said that Sky is an obstacle for the BBC to earn even more money from the UK population as much as the BBC is an obstacle in Sky's aim to earn even more money from the UK population.
With the BBC as the self-declared world's largest broadcasting organisation, Sky is certainly becoming a threat to that dominance.
When you read those sentiments, clearly Sky undermines the former BBC monopoly and it's current dominace as the "world's largest broadcasting organisation", which could explain why BBC supporters hate Sky so much.
On that basis, I will repeat my simple question:
Could you explain exactly how Sky is an obstacle for the BBC to "earn even more money from the UK population" (your words)?
A simple question sparked by your earlier statement. A question that should, I would have thought, have a simple answer, devoid of your much-loved soundbites. Unless of course you aree either going to run & hide, or simply ignore the question and provide another non-answer
People hate Sky because they have a natural distrust of any organisation that has the potential for a dominance over a large sector.
People hate Microsoft for the same reason, as too often in the past such dominance has led to abuse of position.
I would have no problem with Sky subscribers not having to pay the TV Licence fee provided they had no access to BBC programmes. But I think you would find if that were implimented a lot of Sky subscribers would complain they could no longer watch BBC programmes!
The reason most people subecribe to Sky is for the sport, if they didn't have that Sky would probably have folded a very long time ago.
If you can't even tell the difference between not having a licence and not wanting a licence, and the effect that not wanting a licence might threaten the BBC's dominance, there's little more I can add.
Oh God, that's just a stream of utter canards in one post!
You hit the nail on the head right there.
It would be very interesting too see what would happen if the BBC was withdrawn from Sky users who don't pay the licence fee. Many sky users watch the BBC, after all its still the most viewed/used broadcaster by far.
I have a Norwegian friend who is totally envious of the fact we have the BBC; they have two BBC channels in Norway - BBC Knowlege and BBC Entertainment which mostly show older BBC programmes and he loves watching them. I asked him about their national broadcaster, NRK and what they pay for that. They pay almost double what we pay for our licence fee, yet receive far less services and programming from NRK.
I wonder why?
Maybe it's because, yet again, you prefer to litter your posts with convenient but worthless soundbites and gross generalisations rather than anything of value
Do you even take your own posts seriously? I can't imagine anyone else does.
By the way, fancy responding to my points about your criticism of Young Fishmonger Of The Year and then your proposal the BBC lease out broadcasting spectrum it does not own and has no right to sell?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/purpose/what.shtml
Personally, I don't think that should be the role of a licence-fee funded UK public service broadcaster.
Maybe a change at Sky Sports, as they say, get pan-european contracts for Premier League, Bundesliga, Serie A?
I think it is, in a way. We pay for it, so what if they become the biggest - and isn't that something that we as a nation should be proud of? Why shouldn't we be proud that many millions of people around the world are jealous of our national broadcaster?
Don't hold your breath.
So what should the BBC do?
Become an elitist broadcaster?
Less TV channels? Less Radio Stations?
I think that their is room to cut services, say BBC 1, 2, a revamped BBC 3, and a merged Childrens's channel.
Maybe regional or sub regional radio (BBC East could do it
that way) programming outside peak hours for local stations. 4am- 6am, 9am - midday, 2pm -4pm, 7pm-1am. Weekdays. Should be local news, info, topical programmes on the local station at other times, 6am-9am, midday-2pm, 4pm-7pm. Although if say like now, weather or other situations require they should remain local to serve the areas they cover.
Heres an idea.....
Have the government state that the BBC will be totally comercial by 2015 and must do all it can before then to prepare.
Any money above what they already earn from worldwide etc to be cut from licence fee and added to broadband pot for rural rollout.
You would hear screams of horror from Rup and his mates plus all comercial channels.
The Beeb would take vast amounts of advertising from them, on top of that it could set up any deals it liked with other companies worldwide and earn masses of extra money.
It could probably afford to outbid Sky on sports etc and that would be the beginning of the end for them.
Actually lets do it and put Vince Cable in as the new head of the commercial BBC business. I bet he does a great job squashing Sky
NO!
Ashley Tabor would be trying to buy and (ruin). Radio 1 and 2!
Although guess more for the radio board, would any Radio1 or 2 presenters make it on to Heart and Gold (guessing they would be his brand names). Wonder if he would also want to buy and shut down Radio 3?