Why don't the Competition Commission look into...
Discussion
mackie1 said:
I did not know this but apparently Channel 4 is completely owned by the state.
Source for that?"uring the station's formative years, funding came from the ITV companies in return for their right to sell advertisements in their region on the fourth channel.
Nowadays it pays for itself in much the same way as most privately run commercial stations, i.e. through the sale of on-air advertising, programme sponsorship, and the sale of any programme content and merchandising rights it owns, such as overseas sales and video sales. It also has the ability to subsidise the main network through any profits made on the corporation's other endeavours, which have in the past included subscription fees from stations such as E4 and Film4 (now no longer subscription services) and its 'video-on-demand' sales. In practice, however, these other activities are loss-making, and are subsidised by the main network. According to Channel 4's last published accounts, for 2005, the extent of this cross-subsidy was some £30 million.[23]
The change in funding method came about by the Broadcasting Act 1990 when the new corporation was afforded the ability to fund itself. Originally this arrangement left a 'safety net' guaranteed minimum income should the revenue fall too low, funded by large insurance payments made to the ITV companies. Such a subsidy was never required, however, and these premiums were phased out by government in 1998. After the link with ITV was cut, the cross-promotion which had existed between ITV and Channel 4 also ended.
In 2007 due to severe funding difficulties, the channel sought government help and was granted a payment of £14 million over a six-year period. The money would have come from the television licence fee and would have been the first time that money from the licence fee had been given to any broadcaster other than the BBC.[24] The plan was scrapped by The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham, ahead of "broader decisions about the future framework of public service broadcasting".[25] The broadcasting regulator Ofcom released their review in January 2009 in which they suggested that Channel 4 would preferably be funded by "partnerships, joint ventures or mergers"
I don't get why people b
h about the TV licence. For £145 per year you get numerous channels, OD content, lots of excellent radio, etc. and no bloody ad breaks. Plus you get the other channels to watch. Virgin and Sky are £30-60 PER MONTH.
Personally I think it is very good value, which is saying something being a tight yorkshireman.
h about the TV licence. For £145 per year you get numerous channels, OD content, lots of excellent radio, etc. and no bloody ad breaks. Plus you get the other channels to watch. Virgin and Sky are £30-60 PER MONTH.Personally I think it is very good value, which is saying something being a tight yorkshireman.
I found out the other day that the area I live in is not going to be able to receive terrestrial digital TV so when the analogue service is cut off the only option is to buy a dish and freesat box to watch free television. I live less than 30 miles from central London and in a town of over 30k people.
This doesn't effect me as I have Sky but could I argue that I pay Sky for a service and that if I do not wish to watch BBC programmes it should be Sky that limit the programming I receive as per my request. By chosing to watch Sky channels it doesn't mean I should have to be forced to have acces to BBC and have to pay a TV licence when a free signal is no longer available in my area.
I know the answer is that I have a device in my home that can receive a signal so I have to pay. You could then argue that by having a mobile phone with O2 I should also pay Vodafone/Orange etc as my phone could use their service if my provider didn't limit it. Now I'm only playing devils advocate but I do think the way TV licencing (or TV tax) works is starting to get onto shakey ground.
This doesn't effect me as I have Sky but could I argue that I pay Sky for a service and that if I do not wish to watch BBC programmes it should be Sky that limit the programming I receive as per my request. By chosing to watch Sky channels it doesn't mean I should have to be forced to have acces to BBC and have to pay a TV licence when a free signal is no longer available in my area.
I know the answer is that I have a device in my home that can receive a signal so I have to pay. You could then argue that by having a mobile phone with O2 I should also pay Vodafone/Orange etc as my phone could use their service if my provider didn't limit it. Now I'm only playing devils advocate but I do think the way TV licencing (or TV tax) works is starting to get onto shakey ground.
rhinochopig said:
I don't get why people bh about the TV licence. For £145 per year you get numerous channels, OD content, lots of excellent radio, etc. and no bloody ad breaks. Plus you get the other channels to watch. Virgin and Sky are £30-60 PER MONTH.
Personally I think it is very good value, which is saying something being a tight yorkshireman.
I'm not denying that, but it is inherently anti-competitive. Why isn't the money given to all companies that broadcast TV and radio in the UK?h about the TV licence. For £145 per year you get numerous channels, OD content, lots of excellent radio, etc. and no bloody ad breaks. Plus you get the other channels to watch. Virgin and Sky are £30-60 PER MONTH.Personally I think it is very good value, which is saying something being a tight yorkshireman.
rhinochopig said:
I don't get why people bh about the TV license. For £145 per year you get numerous channels, OD content, lots of excellent radio, etc. and no bloody ad breaks. Plus you get the other channels to watch. Virgin and Sky are £30-60 PER MONTH.
Personally I think it is very good value, which is saying something being a tight yorkshireman.
Personally, I wouldn't mind one jot about paying it, IF it stopped being so biased regarding socialism and green issues. helping to fund pravda-esque news and current affairs tripe is a little galling. (Andrew Neil not included...)h about the TV license. For £145 per year you get numerous channels, OD content, lots of excellent radio, etc. and no bloody ad breaks. Plus you get the other channels to watch. Virgin and Sky are £30-60 PER MONTH.Personally I think it is very good value, which is saying something being a tight yorkshireman.
CzechItOut said:
I'm not denying that, but it is inherently anti-competitive. Why isn't the money given to all companies that broadcast TV and radio in the UK?
Because they have the option to raise money commercially. Besides it's not like the BBC get all the money and keep it for themselves, a large proportion of their cash has to be spent on production outside the BBC.theaxe said:
Because they have the option to raise money commercially. Besides it's not like the BBC get all the money and keep it for themselves, a large proportion of their cash has to be spent on production outside the BBC.
Don't the BBC raise money commercially by selling their programmes overseas, DVDs, branded merchandise etc.?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff