Freedom from TV license oppression
Discussion
chris watton said:
4v6 said:
The solutions a simple one, If you want to watch the bulls
t broadcasting corp's output then you cough up and pay for it, dont expect anyone not wanting their output to pay them, let them survive in the real world like any other broadcaster.
Whys that such a hard thing to do?
Because, I think, there are a lot on the Left who always expect others to help pay for their confirmation bias. t broadcasting corp's output then you cough up and pay for it, dont expect anyone not wanting their output to pay them, let them survive in the real world like any other broadcaster.Whys that such a hard thing to do?
TV programming wise of course BBC1 is going to be mass market - it;s it;s positioning along with bbc 3 to some extent
BBC2 is perhaps a little less higbrow than it;s been in the past - but that;s becasue BBC4 is offering dedicated space for that kind of programming every evening
compare CBBC and the commercial kids channels it;s completely different world - unfortunately the dedicated kids channels have reduced the exposure of none parents to children's TV provision
classic FM is often criticised as lightweight - but that;s the problem with advertiser led funding in a classical station vs radio 3
local radio again is a market where the commercial offering is dire , I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE , with itls constant advertising and ,I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE , limited playlists I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE ,
With these feet said:
"How much does Sky cost?"
You decide what you want to watch and decide if its worth the fee.
More to the point, just how much will the fee be if it were the BBC?
I watch very little on the BBC, even less on iPlayer. Yet regardless of my viewing level the payment is the same. I would estimate the fee would increase to 4 or 5 times the fee it is now, along with many smaller less known programmes being dropped.
Top gear as an example, could easily sustain itself on another channel. Though I would not pay the fee just to watch it. In fact I struggle to think of a number of programmes that are available all year round - TG is 6 - 12 shows a year?
I read, but cannot now find an interesting article on theregister which held the opinion based on some basic analysis, that if the BBC was privatised, then it would fundamentally destroy the commercial TV market in the UK. I can't remmeber the detailsm but the argument was something along the lines of :You decide what you want to watch and decide if its worth the fee.
More to the point, just how much will the fee be if it were the BBC?
I watch very little on the BBC, even less on iPlayer. Yet regardless of my viewing level the payment is the same. I would estimate the fee would increase to 4 or 5 times the fee it is now, along with many smaller less known programmes being dropped.
Top gear as an example, could easily sustain itself on another channel. Though I would not pay the fee just to watch it. In fact I struggle to think of a number of programmes that are available all year round - TG is 6 - 12 shows a year?
(i) BBC monthly fee would increase from ~£12/month (license) to ~£20/month (commercial)
(ii) Most people in the UK would still elect to choose the BBC, meaning that BBC revenues (from the additional £8/month) would actually increase.
(iii) Many people would give up BT/Sky/Virgin media to pay for it (rather than pay for both).
The outcome is rising revenue for the BBC, combined with reducing costs (no public responsibility means they can drop all the content which isn't commercial enough). Whilst the other providers face falling subscriber numbers, and falling advert revenues (if the BBC carries adverts then that's hundreds of hours of additional advertising space), which in turn impacts their ability to buy the sport/big US TV shows, which in turn then feeds into a death spiral for them.
The bottom line is that you can't just change how the BBC is funded and expect everything to continue with no impact. You might find that you end up paying more, AND have less choice.
mph1977 said:
it's lazy to suggest this is simply a left-right issue
TV programming wise of course BBC1 is going to be mass market - it;s it;s positioning along with bbc 3 to some extent
BBC2 is perhaps a little less higbrow than it;s been in the past - but that;s becasue BBC4 is offering dedicated space for that kind of programming every evening
compare CBBC and the commercial kids channels it;s completely different world - unfortunately the dedicated kids channels have reduced the exposure of none parents to children's TV provision
classic FM is often criticised as lightweight - but that;s the problem with advertiser led funding in a classical station vs radio 3
local radio again is a market where the commercial offering is dire , I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE , with itls constant advertising and ,I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE , limited playlists I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE ,
Sorry - I put the TV programming wise of course BBC1 is going to be mass market - it;s it;s positioning along with bbc 3 to some extent
BBC2 is perhaps a little less higbrow than it;s been in the past - but that;s becasue BBC4 is offering dedicated space for that kind of programming every evening
compare CBBC and the commercial kids channels it;s completely different world - unfortunately the dedicated kids channels have reduced the exposure of none parents to children's TV provision
classic FM is often criticised as lightweight - but that;s the problem with advertiser led funding in a classical station vs radio 3
local radio again is a market where the commercial offering is dire , I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE , with itls constant advertising and ,I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE , limited playlists I said you buy one you get on free , you buy one you get one free , YOU BUY ONE YOU GET ONE FREE ,
there because we rarely watch any BBC content, so I was just assuming, based on the past and why we stopped watching/listening to BBC content (specifically news and current affairs) - so I could be wrong. 
As for ads, we see hardly any as we rarely watch live TV - and radio is also rarely played - we have around 60gb of our own music....from classical to punk.
tangerine_sedge said:
I read, but cannot now find an interesting article on theregister which held the opinion based on some basic analysis, that if the BBC was privatised, then it would fundamentally destroy the commercial TV market in the UK. I can't remmeber the detailsm but the argument was something along the lines of :
(i) BBC monthly fee would increase from ~£12/month (license) to ~£20/month (commercial)
(ii) Most people in the UK would still elect to choose the BBC, meaning that BBC revenues (from the additional £8/month) would actually increase.
(iii) Many people would give up BT/Sky/Virgin media to pay for it (rather than pay for both).
The outcome is rising revenue for the BBC, combined with reducing costs (no public responsibility means they can drop all the content which isn't commercial enough). Whilst the other providers face falling subscriber numbers, and falling advert revenues (if the BBC carries adverts then that's hundreds of hours of additional advertising space), which in turn impacts their ability to buy the sport/big US TV shows, which in turn then feeds into a death spiral for them.
The bottom line is that you can't just change how the BBC is funded and expect everything to continue with no impact. You might find that you end up paying more, AND have less choice.
I believe the most watch channel on sky TV is actually BBC 1(i) BBC monthly fee would increase from ~£12/month (license) to ~£20/month (commercial)
(ii) Most people in the UK would still elect to choose the BBC, meaning that BBC revenues (from the additional £8/month) would actually increase.
(iii) Many people would give up BT/Sky/Virgin media to pay for it (rather than pay for both).
The outcome is rising revenue for the BBC, combined with reducing costs (no public responsibility means they can drop all the content which isn't commercial enough). Whilst the other providers face falling subscriber numbers, and falling advert revenues (if the BBC carries adverts then that's hundreds of hours of additional advertising space), which in turn impacts their ability to buy the sport/big US TV shows, which in turn then feeds into a death spiral for them.
The bottom line is that you can't just change how the BBC is funded and expect everything to continue with no impact. You might find that you end up paying more, AND have less choice.
I also wonder if there's going to be a massive generational issue sometime in the future, as our kids and their friends do not listen to any radio stations or watch TV - they're more into social network sites and YouTube. They just do not seem to be in the least bit interested in any TV/radio channel, let alone BBC.
All of us 'oldies' like it because it feels comfortable, it's what we're used to - but seems quite alien to our kids...
All of us 'oldies' like it because it feels comfortable, it's what we're used to - but seems quite alien to our kids...
Edited by chris watton on Monday 2nd March 13:48
mph1977 said:
chris watton said:
4v6 said:
The solutions a simple one, If you want to watch the bullst broadcasting corp's output then you cough up and pay for it, dont expect anyone not wanting their output to pay them, let them survive in the real world like any other broadcaster.
Whys that such a hard thing to do?
Because, I think, there are a lot on the Left who always expect others to help pay for their confirmation bias. t broadcasting corp's output then you cough up and pay for it, dont expect anyone not wanting their output to pay them, let them survive in the real world like any other broadcaster.Whys that such a hard thing to do?
Richyboy said:
There's going to be a levy now on every household regardless whether you watch the rubbish or even have a tv; similar to Germany. Current government is even more left wing than its predecessor.
Public funded state broadcaster.What I find funny is that this very concept is ridiculed a lot by our media, especially the BBC against the likes of CCTV and RT.
tangerine_sedge said:
The bottom line is that you can't just change how the BBC is funded and expect everything to continue with no impact. You might find that you end up paying more, AND have less choice.
Good. Thats the chance thats got to be taken.Look,youd protest if i told you to buy my beer and hookers for me,thats the argument being put forward at its base level.
I and others dont WANT bbc content nor do we want to watch it, we therefore dont NEED to pay for it.
If the rotten bbc went out like a light never to be seen again the vacuum it left behind would still be filled by something and rapidly.
Its time we buried it.
chris watton said:
But, but where would all the ex Labour MP's and Guardian employees go if there wasn't a BBC?
Gotta think about them!
Very generous of you - and in the same spirit, where would the BBC's senior staff go if there was no Labour Party? Gotta think about them!
The list is quite extensive.
After quitting as BBC Director General, Lord Birt became an adviser to Tony Bliar.
Greg Dyke, known as 'the' Tony's Crony and a Labour donor, followed Birt as DG at the BBC.
Sir Michael Lyons a former Labour councillor and staunch labourite was appointed Chairman of the BBC Trust by Gordon Brown...the BBC describes that particular role as 'one of the most influential posts in UK broadcasting'.
Previous Chairman Gavyn Davies - who resigned after the Hutton Report - was well-known for Labour links, his wife just happened to be Gordon Brown's private secretary, and prior to taking up his BBC role Davies was (naturally) a member of the Labour Party.
Jeff Randall a former BBC Business Editor said:
It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the Earth is round!’ they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
But, but where would all the ex Labour MP's and Guardian employees go if there wasn't a BBC?
Gotta think about them!
Very generous of you - and in the same spirit, where would the BBC's senior staff go if there was no Labour Party? Gotta think about them!
The list is quite extensive.
After quitting as BBC Director General, Lord Birt became an adviser to Tony Bliar.
Greg Dyke, known as 'the' Tony's Crony and a Labour donor, followed Birt as DG at the BBC.
Sir Michael Lyons a former Labour councillor and staunch labourite was appointed Chairman of the BBC Trust by Gordon Brown...the BBC describes that particular role as 'one of the most influential posts in UK broadcasting'.
Previous Chairman Gavyn Davies - who resigned after the Hutton Report - was well-known for Labour links, his wife just happened to be Gordon Brown's private secretary, and prior to taking up his BBC role Davies was (naturally) a member of the Labour Party.
Jeff Randall a former BBC Business Editor said:
It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the Earth is round!’ they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.
4v6 said:
tangerine_sedge said:
The bottom line is that you can't just change how the BBC is funded and expect everything to continue with no impact. You might find that you end up paying more, AND have less choice.
Good. Thats the chance thats got to be taken.Look,youd protest if i told you to buy my beer and hookers for me,thats the argument being put forward at its base level.
I and others dont WANT bbc content nor do we want to watch it, we therefore dont NEED to pay for it.
So, to use your anology, you'll be happy to pay more for worse beer and uglier hookers as long as you don't have to use the BBC provided ones?
I understand that lots of people don't use the BBC, and don't feel why they should pay for it, but until there is proper access control of *all* the BBCs output then I can't see how the situation can be easily altered.
This is the position, because it made sense to have a licence for reception previously, but current technology/content provision makes that now redundant. I'm sure that something will change, but when and to what I don't know.
4v6 said:
If the rotten bbc went out like a light never to be seen again the vacuum it left behind would still be filled by something and rapidly.
Its time we buried it.
I don't quite understand why you think the BBC is 'rotten', like any large organisation it has a distinct culture, a good smattering of internal politics, and a fair amoumt of incompetence, but fundamentally I think it's a good ethical organisation which attempts to be fair and unbiased. The only thing I think is wrong with the organisation is that it's upper echelons are stuffed full of Oxbridge types, but then so is every corporate nowadays.Its time we buried it.
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
But, but where would all the ex Labour MP's and Guardian employees go if there wasn't a BBC?
Gotta think about them!
Very generous of you - and in the same spirit, where would the BBC's senior staff go if there was no Labour Party? Gotta think about them!
The list is quite extensive.
After quitting as BBC Director General, Lord Birt became an adviser to Tony Bliar.
Greg Dyke, known as 'the' Tony's Crony and a Labour donor, followed Birt as DG at the BBC.
Sir Michael Lyons a former Labour councillor and staunch labourite was appointed Chairman of the BBC Trust by Gordon Brown...the BBC describes that particular role as 'one of the most influential posts in UK broadcasting'.
Previous Chairman Gavyn Davies - who resigned after the Hutton Report - was well-known for Labour links, his wife just happened to be Gordon Brown's private secretary, and prior to taking up his BBC role Davies was (naturally) a member of the Labour Party.
Jeff Randall a former BBC Business Editor said:
It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the Earth is round!’ they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.
link
longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
But, but where would all the ex Labour MP's and Guardian employees go if there wasn't a BBC?
Gotta think about them!
Very generous of you - and in the same spirit, where would the BBC's senior staff go if there was no Labour Party? Gotta think about them!
The list is quite extensive.
After quitting as BBC Director General, Lord Birt became an adviser to Tony Bliar.
Greg Dyke, known as 'the' Tony's Crony and a Labour donor, followed Birt as DG at the BBC.
Sir Michael Lyons a former Labour councillor and staunch labourite was appointed Chairman of the BBC Trust by Gordon Brown...the BBC describes that particular role as 'one of the most influential posts in UK broadcasting'.
Previous Chairman Gavyn Davies - who resigned after the Hutton Report - was well-known for Labour links, his wife just happened to be Gordon Brown's private secretary, and prior to taking up his BBC role Davies was (naturally) a member of the Labour Party.
Jeff Randall a former BBC Business Editor said:
It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the Earth is round!’ they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.
Do you know in advance where the 'current lot' of the BBC's top staff will go after they fill their mahoosive pension pot at our expense as a semi-captive audience? Or where the godawful current crop of Labour luvvies will go when they need to "spend more time with their family"? From the above track record there has to be a decent chance of more of the same.
In terms of recent moves, as opposed to future moves, do you happen to know if James Purnell aka the former Labour Culture Secretary still has his £295,000 a year job at the BBC? Rumour has it he's Director of Strategy and Digital. He may be having a torrid time as the corporation's Digital Media Initiative got Mark Thompson into a spot of bother this time last year. Then there's Chris Bryant a Shadow Minister for the Arts who held previous roles at the BBC and Common Purpose - a great CV for a Labour MP.
IIRC there are others in the continuum from Purnell down to the likes of Mary Wimbury, a potential future Labour politico who has a BBC past. You might take a peek in your shiny ball and let us know how she'll get on in May.
Overall, HTH
turbobloke said:
longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
But, but where would all the ex Labour MP's and Guardian employees go if there wasn't a BBC?
Gotta think about them!
Very generous of you - and in the same spirit, where would the BBC's senior staff go if there was no Labour Party? Gotta think about them!
The list is quite extensive.
After quitting as BBC Director General, Lord Birt became an adviser to Tony Bliar.
Greg Dyke, known as 'the' Tony's Crony and a Labour donor, followed Birt as DG at the BBC.
Sir Michael Lyons a former Labour councillor and staunch labourite was appointed Chairman of the BBC Trust by Gordon Brown...the BBC describes that particular role as 'one of the most influential posts in UK broadcasting'.
Previous Chairman Gavyn Davies - who resigned after the Hutton Report - was well-known for Labour links, his wife just happened to be Gordon Brown's private secretary, and prior to taking up his BBC role Davies was (naturally) a member of the Labour Party.
Jeff Randall a former BBC Business Editor said:
It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the Earth is round!’ they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.
Do you know in advance where the 'current lot' of the BBC's top staff will go after they fill their mahoosive pension pot at our expense as a semi-captive audience? Or where the godawful current crop of Labour luvvies will go when they need to "spend more time with their family"? From the above track record there has to be a decent chance of more of the same.
In terms of recent moves, as opposed to future moves, do you happen to know if James Purnell aka the former Labour Culture Secretary still has his £295,000 a year job at the BBC? Rumour has it he's Director of Strategy and Digital. He may be having a torrid time as the corporation's Digital Media Initiative got Mark Thompson into a spot of bother this time last year. Then there's Chris Bryant a Shadow Minister for the Arts who held previous roles at the BBC and Common Purpose - a great CV for a Labour MP.
IIRC there are others in the continuum from Purnell down to the likes of Mary Wimbury, a potential future Labour politico who has a BBC past. You might take a peek in your shiny ball and let us know how she'll get on in May.
Overall, HTH
I asked because I'm not aware of current BBC senior execs expressing political views publicly, unlike a time not so long back when that seemed to be the norm. Rona Fairhead doesn't seem political, nor Tony Hall. There will be some who are political, obviously, and there will be thosewho go on to a political career. Just seems to be a bit less political than in previous times.
tangerine_sedge said:
Weak as gnat's pee. I'm not surprised you dropped the link then ran for the hills with nothing else by way of content.Chair of the Trust and that's not the BBC - he's one person and he's not pushing out propaganda day after day. Fail.
Nick Robinson WAS in the Young Conservatives, yet he got the nickname Toenails from BBC staff as he was so far up Gordon Brown's arse that all people could see was...you guessed right. He's a Tory just as much as Ed Balls is a Tory for once being in the Oxford Conservatives. Fail again.
BoJo hired a Labour ex, that much is so, but Boris is Mayor of London and not an MP. Semi-fail.
As to the Cardiff University study, I mentioned that to a 20+ year BBC News veteran and he pissed himself laughing. He was one of the few centre-right people working at the Beeb and his experiences echo those of Jeff Randall. Non-lefties are an endangered species at the beeb.
Anyway, the hilarious academic study that claimed but failed to demonstrate right-wing bias at the BBC chose its research sample of BBC output after the General Election of 2010 when all media outlets were interviewing people from the Conservative led coalition. Excellent cherry picking, and it got the right result, which is hardly surprising as the study was paid for by...well, if you'd read the Report rather than the dreck at the link you gave then you'd know whose logo is on the cover.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff