TV License vs Broadband Internet Only

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:55:11 +0100, BrianH wrote:

Switzerland has a compulsory licence system to fund the
public TV and radio channels somewhat analogous to the UK
one. However, fairly recently there have been the
introduction of advertising in an attempt to offset rising
costs - creating the worst of both worlds.
I saw once that the entire Swiss state system (SSR - DRS+R/TSI+R/TSR)
had the same amount of money to play with as one French network - TF1
as it happens. The second network in each Swiss language region is
usually some cheepo repeat/kids/sports effort.

This in a country bordering four other states and normally
able to receive transmissions from all of them.
A bit like RTE facing UK networks, only the Swiss ones face raw
commercial neighbours of a much lower standard - I need only use the
letters RAI to prove this statement! (Should be polite about
ARD/ZDF/ORF though.) Sadly this means that ITV is in the lead for
sinking towards the low levels where Sky "onc" inhabits.
--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

In article , Scott wrote:
He didn't respond to your post, he responded to Roderick Stewart. If your
going to complain about atribution get it right yourself.

What to you mean? He IS Roderick Stewart. His first words we

In article , Scott wrote:
etc

So Roderick Stewart asserted that I wrote said something that I did
not. If you have a different interpretation I would be interested to
hear it. It seem plain enough to me though.

This puzzles me. Checking back, it does seem that I responded to one
of your posts. I also included a little bit of what you were responding
to, in order to make it clearer, but those bits had quote marks, so it
seems fairly clear who's saying what. Isn't this what usually happens?

This isn't going to turn into another argument about top-posting is it?

Rod.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:41:42 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Scott wrote:
He didn't respond to your post, he responded to Roderick Stewart. If your
going to complain about atribution get it right yourself.

What to you mean? He IS Roderick Stewart. His first words we

In article , Scott wrote:
etc

So Roderick Stewart asserted that I wrote said something that I did
not. If you have a different interpretation I would be interested to
hear it. It seem plain enough to me though.

This puzzles me. Checking back, it does seem that I responded to one
of your posts. I also included a little bit of what you were responding
to, in order to make it clearer, but those bits had quote marks, so it
seems fairly clear who's saying what. Isn't this what usually happens?

This isn't going to turn into another argument about top-posting is it?

Rod.

You also took away all the options for funding I included in my post
and implied by your reply that I was arguing for retention of the
status quo, when I actually said that subscription would seem fairest.

Scott

In article , Scott wrote:
You also took away all the options for funding I included in my post
and implied by your reply that I was arguing for retention of the
status quo, when I actually said that subscription would seem fairest.

Point taken. And in answer to that, I'd agree that subscription does
seem fair, theoretically at least, in the sense that the programmes
would be paid for by those that want them.

I'm not 100% convinced that it could be made viable though. Subscription
was tried before with the first incarnation of DTTV, and that didn't
last. Personally, I would not be persuaded to pay for a television
service unless I were convinced it was worth paying for and its content
couldn't be obtained elsewhere. Sooner or later everything ends up as an
afternoon repeat on freeview, so what incentive is there to pay for it?

Rod.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:59:47 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Scott wrote:
You also took away all the options for funding I included in my post
and implied by your reply that I was arguing for retention of the
status quo, when I actually said that subscription would seem fairest.

Point taken. And in answer to that, I'd agree that subscription does
seem fair, theoretically at least, in the sense that the programmes
would be paid for by those that want them.

I'm not 100% convinced that it could be made viable though. Subscription
was tried before with the first incarnation of DTTV, and that didn't
last. Personally, I would not be persuaded to pay for a television
service unless I were convinced it was worth paying for and its content
couldn't be obtained elsewhere. Sooner or later everything ends up as an
afternoon repeat on freeview, so what incentive is there to pay for it?

Rod.

I agree with you. I expect that so many people would decline to
subscribe the the cost would then become so high that some of the rest
would then decide it was too expensive - a vicious spiral.

On the other hand, I think that advertising on the BBC would force
down advertising rates to the point that the anticipated revenue would
not materialise.

My original question to the 'BBC Resistance' was to ask whether they
want no BBC or an alternative funding model - or if they are just
advocating a form of fare-dodging or shoplifting.

Scott

Colum Mylod wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:55:11 +0100, BrianH wrote:

Switzerland has a compulsory licence system to fund the
public TV and radio channels somewhat analogous to the UK
one. However, fairly recently there have been the
introduction of advertising in an attempt to offset rising
costs - creating the worst of both worlds.
I saw once that the entire Swiss state system (SSR - DRS+R/TSI+R/TSR)
had the same amount of money to play with as one French network - TF1
as it happens. The second network in each Swiss language region is
usually some cheepo repeat/kids/sports effort.
Hmm, not really, DRS 2 (the German speaking region second
channel) is a real alternative to DRS 1 with reasonable
quality programming. Only the main news is duplicated on
both. There is a frequent film offering 'zweitonkanal' with
both the original language (normally English but not always)
and dubbed German.

This in a country bordering four other states and normally
able to receive transmissions from all of them.
A bit like RTE facing UK networks, only the Swiss ones face raw
commercial neighbours of a much lower standard - I need only use the
letters RAI to prove this statement! (Should be polite about
ARD/ZDF/ORF though.) Sadly this means that ITV is in the lead for
sinking towards the low levels where Sky "onc" inhabits.
Switzerland has its own versions of the "raw commercial"
channels such as RTL, Pro7, Sat1, etc., as advertising has
to reflect local conditions - I'm not sure how far the
content differs. There are the dedicated, home-grown
varieties, also.

One quality channel common to all German-speaking countries
is 3Sat that takes some of the best products, especially
cultural ones, from Germany, Austria and Switzerland and
transmits into all three simultaneously. Admittedly, a lot
are programmes that have already been aired by one of the
three and as a majority of households are serviced by cable
that supplies all the major channels from most European
countries, they can constitute a repeat for many. One of the
amusing outcomes of this is to see a programme sourced from
Switzerland and needing German subtitles or voice-over to
translate from the Swiss-German for the other two.

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:59:47 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Scott wrote:
You also took away all the options for funding I included in my post
and implied by your reply that I was arguing for retention of the
status quo, when I actually said that subscription would seem fairest.

Point taken. And in answer to that, I'd agree that subscription does
seem fair, theoretically at least, in the sense that the programmes
would be paid for by those that want them.

I'm not 100% convinced that it could be made viable though. Subscription
was tried before with the first incarnation of DTTV, and that didn't
last. Personally, I would not be persuaded to pay for a television
service unless I were convinced it was worth paying for and its content
couldn't be obtained elsewhere. Sooner or later everything ends up as an
afternoon repeat on freeview, so what incentive is there to pay for it?

Rod.

I agree with you. I expect that so many people would decline to
subscribe the the cost would then become so high that some of the rest
would then decide it was too expensive - a vicious spiral.

On the other hand, I think that advertising on the BBC would force
down advertising rates to the point that the anticipated revenue would
not materialise.

My original question to the 'BBC Resistance' was to ask whether they
want no BBC or an alternative funding model - or if they are just
advocating a form of fare-dodging or shoplifting.

Scott


****V Digital made loads of mistakes. Low quality, DOG riddled, advert
saturated content is not likely to attract critical mass. Football did not
work.



I've listed in a previous thread(s) both my many problems with the BBC and
my remedies, so I shall not restate.



I personally am withholding funds from the BBC in direct retaliation to the
BBC's failure to resolve a complaint I have made about its digital channels.
The BBC has refused to resolve my complaint leaving one with no further
recourse but litigation and legal remedies.

I would not advocate fare-dodging and shoplifting although I am an advocate
for Peer2Peer as part of the process with which people actually buy content
anyway. Separate subject.

The BBC Resistance publishes advice given by a solicitor:

The advice it publishes, and the tactics I discuss do not specifically
encourage an illegal activity or theft. We do not tell you to go and watch
or install a television. Instead, the advice is how to passively not
cooperate with the state within the laws of Tort, common law, and ECHR.

The TVL do not actually have the legal powers and means to demand an answer,
demand a letter, enter land or properties, obtain a "search warrant", scan
the contents of buildings, interrogate, interview, or in any way gather
evidence.

The TVL have the problem in that the entire system is flawed in that it
relies on the cooperation of stupidity of the citizen. Unfortunately for
them, 95% of "evaders" are neither of these, and now thanks to the BBC
Resistance network, we know 1000s can adopt the same tactic safely and
effectively.

It is not a case of going on a train and doing a "bunk" or going into a shop
and taking an item. It is a case of us not wanting to go on that journey and
not wishing to purchase the set menu within a restaurant.

I shall admit to two items of hypocrisy on my part: "Sky at Night" and "This
Week". I admit I watch these shows. I would not subscribe to the BBC in
order to get these.

I suggest the way they run their business is the same way I run my
businesses: "offer what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for".

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:39:09 -0000, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:59:47 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Scott wrote:
You also took away all the options for funding I included in my post
and implied by your reply that I was arguing for retention of the
status quo, when I actually said that subscription would seem fairest.

Point taken. And in answer to that, I'd agree that subscription does
seem fair, theoretically at least, in the sense that the programmes
would be paid for by those that want them.

I'm not 100% convinced that it could be made viable though. Subscription
was tried before with the first incarnation of DTTV, and that didn't
last. Personally, I would not be persuaded to pay for a television
service unless I were convinced it was worth paying for and its content
couldn't be obtained elsewhere. Sooner or later everything ends up as an
afternoon repeat on freeview, so what incentive is there to pay for it?

Rod.

I agree with you. I expect that so many people would decline to
subscribe the the cost would then become so high that some of the rest
would then decide it was too expensive - a vicious spiral.

On the other hand, I think that advertising on the BBC would force
down advertising rates to the point that the anticipated revenue would
not materialise.

My original question to the 'BBC Resistance' was to ask whether they
want no BBC or an alternative funding model - or if they are just
advocating a form of fare-dodging or shoplifting.

Scott


****V Digital made loads of mistakes. Low quality, DOG riddled, advert
saturated content is not likely to attract critical mass. Football did not
work.



I've listed in a previous thread(s) both my many problems with the BBC and
my remedies, so I shall not restate.



I personally am withholding funds from the BBC in direct retaliation to the
BBC's failure to resolve a complaint I have made about its digital channels.
The BBC has refused to resolve my complaint leaving one with no further
recourse but litigation and legal remedies.

I would not advocate fare-dodging and shoplifting although I am an advocate
for Peer2Peer as part of the process with which people actually buy content
anyway. Separate subject.

The BBC Resistance publishes advice given by a solicitor:

The advice it publishes, and the tactics I discuss do not specifically
encourage an illegal activity or theft. We do not tell you to go and watch
or install a television. Instead, the advice is how to passively not
cooperate with the state within the laws of Tort, common law, and ECHR.

The TVL do not actually have the legal powers and means to demand an answer,
demand a letter, enter land or properties, obtain a "search warrant", scan
the contents of buildings, interrogate, interview, or in any way gather
evidence.

The TVL have the problem in that the entire system is flawed in that it
relies on the cooperation of stupidity of the citizen. Unfortunately for
them, 95% of "evaders" are neither of these, and now thanks to the BBC
Resistance network, we know 1000s can adopt the same tactic safely and
effectively.

It is not a case of going on a train and doing a "bunk" or going into a shop
and taking an item. It is a case of us not wanting to go on that journey and
not wishing to purchase the set menu within a restaurant.

I shall admit to two items of hypocrisy on my part: "Sky at Night" and "This
Week". I admit I watch these shows. I would not subscribe to the BBC in
order to get these.

I suggest the way they run their business is the same way I run my
businesses: "offer what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for".

So basically BBC Resistance supports there being a BBC but wants if
funded by subscription, which would mean encrypted transmission and a
subscription fee. Am I right so far?

Do you envisage this being an annual subscription or a pay per view
model?

Do you accept that the subscription would be significantly higher than
the present licence fee assuming a significant proportion of the
population declines the service, or should the BBC downsize to match
the income?

Scott

Do you envisage this being an annual subscription or a pay per view
model?

Do you accept that the subscription would be significantly higher than
the present licence fee assuming a significant proportion of the
population declines the service, or should the BBC downsize to match
the income?

Scott


I think there will be combinations of funding methods depending on the type
of programme, genre, exclusivity, economics, etc.

I also think there needs to be an effective "Strategic Public Service
Content Commissioning Authority" ensuring that no part of the PSB ecology is
neglected and allowed to collapse unlike the present day.

The thing you should take in to account is today's BBC is already about 70%
converted into a commercial quasi-privatised company. I suspect a lot off
BBC fans are having their understanding distorted by the fact they see the
[b][b][C] swastika and brand name on the programmes and channels, but this
is really masking and obfuscating which bits of content and the production
process are in-house BBC productions and which are independently produced
commissions by PLC contractors.

This also extends extensively into New Labour's / the post John Birt matrix
structu Transmission, Play-out, Personnel, Finance, Technology, Buildings
are all part outsourced to unaccountable evil PLCs. (I am sure this is
symptomatic and reflective of many of my grievances).

The BBC could shut down tomorrow and open one day later as a PLC.

Case in point: Look how narrow the differences between [b][b][C] ONE and UK
TV Gold are. Same building. Same D.G. Same Director of Television. Same
playout. Same programmes. Inter-change of staff.

Now, in my view, if the BBC was really doing its PSB mission correctly,
really correcting market failure, really making programmes that were rightly
head and shoulders above the competition, we would not have the means to
compare that with what exists elsewhere.

So yes, if I were a D.G. running the BBC as a true PSB on my imaginary £80
licence fee, it would be smaller, more focused, and more distinct. And some
of those parts that exist today would be separated off and run as PLCs using
what ever funding methods its shareholders and board decide.

I do not agree with the end of licence fee Armageddon fud. In the last 5
years, more channels of more service to the public have opened than in the
past 60 years beforehand. If there is genuine public demand for a product,
providing the economics is aligned or incubated competently, there is huge
opportunity for new ventures to start.

I regard the BBC and BSKYB who effectively operate their own respective
"licence fee" oligopies, as barriers to entry choking new comers.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:19:24 GMT, Kevin
wrote:

This is why many more poor women, immigrants, and students get done
convicted than educated, wealthy, middle class men.

Or maybe educated, wealthy, middle class men see the sense in just
paying for the service in the first place and so very rarely ever need
to turn up in front of a magistrate to 'get done convicted'?

Lee.
--
lee at w2designs dot co dot uk

If I have one flaw, it's that I'm a perfectoinist.


Your also a tube.

And you're illiterate.

Lee.
--
lee at w2designs dot co dot uk

If I have one flaw it's that I'm a perfectoinist.