Scottish TV at the expense of the English and Welsh

On 29/11/2013 12:23, Ian wrote:
In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:20:11 +0000, Ian wrote:

In message , Michael
Chare writes
I Scotland becomes a separate country how will we stop them from
benefiting from free satellite TV paid for by the English and Welsh?


I don't think that commercial interests would allow that.

That might be so, but how could this be implemented technically?



Why not just leave it the way it is?

Those in Scotland who pay for a licence would, I'm sure, be happy to
carry on doing so, so no loss to BBC or begga, erm, advertisers.

If necessary it could be called a subscription.

This is what 'they' propose:


Broadcasting
Independence will create new opportunities in broadcasting and
production in Scotland. A new publicly funded, public service
broadcaster should help strengthen our democracy, encourage production
and participation. It should be a trusted, reliable, impartial source of
information and reflect the diversity of the nation and our world to the
people of Scotland, and it should seek opportunities to collaborate
beyond our borders to pioneer innovation in entertainment, education and
journalism.

Following independence the Scottish Government plans to honour all
existing TV and radio broadcasting licences to their expiry, maintaining
access to all the existing programming and content that people currently
enjoy.

Alongside the commercial channels serving Scotland, we plan to create a
new public service broadcaster, the Scottish Broadcasting Service (SBS),
which will initially be based on the staff and assets of BBC Scotland.
Over time the SBS would develop services to reflect the broad interests
and outlook of the people of Scotland. Broadcasting on TV, radio and
online, the SBS will be funded by licence fee, which on independence
will be the same as the UK licence fee. All current licence fee payment
exemptions and concessions will be retained. We propose that the SBS
enters into a new formal relationship with the BBC as a joint venture,
where the SBS would continue to supply the BBC network with the same
level of programming, in return for continuing access to BBC services in
Scotland. This will ensure that the people of Scotland will still have
access to all current programming, including EastEnders, Dr Who, and
Strictly Come Dancing and to channels like CBeebies.


--
Michael Chare

In article ,
Michael Chare [email protected] wrote:



Following independence the Scottish Government plans to honour all
existing TV and radio broadcasting licences to their expiry, maintaining
access to all the existing programming and content that people currently
enjoy.

Hmmm... To "expiry". Which they'd probably have to do for contractual
reasons anyway. But what then for, say, Channel 4?

... SBS will be funded by licence fee, which on independence will be
the same as the UK licence fee. All current licence fee payment
exemptions and concessions will be retained. We propose that the SBS
enters into a new formal relationship with the BBC as a joint venture,
where the SBS would continue to supply the BBC network with the same
level of programming, in return for continuing access to BBC services in
Scotland.

And the BBC's reaction is?...

Not clear to me how the same fee will cover both the SBS and BBC. Have the
feeling there may be a barny there. Maybe not free beer for *everyone* and
not sunny *every* day?

This will ensure

Even if the BBC or Westminster say "Depart and multiply, son!" ?

that the people of Scotland will still have access to
all current programming, including EastEnders, Dr Who, and Strictly Come
Dancing and to channels like CBeebies.

How about all *future* programming, particularly given that some gets
dumped *now* to make way for, say, Gaelic TV for six SNP supporters and
their pet sheep?

The problem is the one that runs though all their statements. They are
sweeping 'apirations', not a promise they can guarantee to fulfill.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:13:18 +0100, "tim......"
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
tim...... wrote:

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 27/11/2013 16:44, Michael Chare wrote:
I Scotland becomes a separate country how will we stop them from
benefiting from free satellite TV paid for by the English and Welsh?

The problems and anomalies surrounding TV in the proposed separation of
Scotland from the UK are a relatively minor microcosm of the enormity
of the task to create its own stand alone national infrastructure.

Mr S, hasn't even begun to think it through properly,

Neither had the slovaks.

but they spoke a different language from the Czechs.

what that got to do with it

(the myriad of other things, not the TV)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCk_yNuTGk


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 20:57:48 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Woody wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Ian Jackson wrote:

Annexing Berwick-on-Tweed would be easier.
They've already got form for doing that - several times.
Taunton is a part of Minehead...

Bill



Que?

I say, very clever! Worthy of Round Britain Quiz! Monty Python, John
Cleese, Fawlty Towers, Manuel! Well done.

Bill


The Scots have a secret plan to declare UDI, and move the border to
just south of Corby.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Ian
wrote:
In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:20:11 +0000, Ian wrote:

In message ,
Michael Chare writes
I Scotland becomes a separate country how will we stop them from
benefiting from free satellite TV paid for by the English and Welsh?


I don't think that commercial interests would allow that.

That might be so, but how could this be implemented technically?



Why not just leave it the way it is?

Those in Scotland who pay for a licence would, I'm sure, be happy to
carry on doing so, so no loss to BBC or begga, erm, advertisers.

If necessary it could be called a subscription.

Personally I'd be quite happy with that. But it does raise questions also
about ITV and Ch4 and the principle that the fee is 'for receiving *all*
TV
broadcasts'. So I suspect whichever way you did that someone would make a
fuss about it. Charging the same for some to get access to all broadcasts
as other had to pay 'just for the BBC' would annoy some. Making the
payments different would annoy others.

I can understand why the BBC want to keep shtum about this. But their
refusing to say what they'd prefer or plan still has an effect on this as
what they feel is practical and the effect on their costs, etc, will
matter
when decisions may have to be made. Without that info the vote is buying a
pig in a poke, despite all the claims from the SNP about what 'will'
happen
- if things turn out just as they dream.


I don't think that the BBC can offer any opinion on this. If they did, they
would be between a rock and a hard place and would be accused of seeking to
influence the Independence debate. I also think that, Constitutionally, the
BBC would be wrong to say anything. If Scotland votes for independence it
would be for the then British/Northern Irish Government to determine the
level of co-operation with Scotland. In a whole load of things, of which
broadcasting is a relatively unimportant component.
--
JohnT

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:42:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:


It would open a can of worms if viewers in Scotland got the choice of
paying a fee to view the BBC, but the rest of the country had a licence
fee. And I can't see an independant Scotland having a licence fee which
went to the BBC.

Yes, that may be the kind of reason they are frightened to say anything.
However it might be possible if, for example, it was presented as an
'internet only subscription' with no provision for broadcast. Of course,
this might be a nightmare in other ways.

Hence my personal concern is that we'd either simply be (officially) denied
access, or get some real muddle via a system akin to now, but with the
Scots Government creaming off a fraction for a tartan TV which I suspect
would become just a political 'flag' that many wouldn't watch and get
annoyed it if prevented them seeing/hearing other progs from the BBC.

You have to wonder whether the BBC costs would reduce more than the
relative numbers of population if BBC became "rest of Britain"
broadcasting.

Given the population density + size of Scotland it must cost more per
head to provide terrestrial broadcasting.

Then there are similar cans of worms for all the subcontractors

Does Arqiva keep their broadcast contracts if Scotland splits off
- note BBC pays them for a lot of stuff now, so that could keep a few
lawyers and accountants busy for a while.

there will be similar questions for other industries

- what happens to "BT" and its various divisions when the countries
split?
(although they already run telecoms businesses in other countries such
as Eire).
- do all the Euro funded parts of the next gen broadband deals in
Scotland get scrubbed?

- who runs all the regulator bits - Scottish Ofcom?


Whichever way you cut this it looks like coming down to:

1) Either we'd be allowed access to the BBC and any other broadcasts from
'down south' as now, on the fee basis as now. Or not.

2) They set up a totally separate SBC.

Apart from some 'local news' and 'tartan' stuff why anyone would then watch
(2) if they have (1), heaven knows!

Given the long-term hostility and resentment from the SNP against the BBC I
suspect they'd be quite happy for us to lose access and blame the BBC or
Westminster. Given this it seems to me a reason for people to lean to 'no'
if they have much interest in the BBC output *and* some of the non-BBC
output from 'down south'.

That said, STV is basically run on an elastic band, now. If people want to
know what 'local TV' might be like, check that out with the ITV syndicated
stuff deleted from consideration.

Jim
--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

Interesting item on BBC Breakfast / Newswatch this morning. A
interview with Steve Hewlett about what could/would happen to
broadcasting in terms of licence etc post a Yes vote.

If you stop and think about it there are about 3m people in
Scotland and assuming families of three (!) and all holding a TV
licence (not) at c£145, the income would be £435m. Could an
entire broadcasting service of TV and radio plus all of the
transmitters be run from such an amount? I think not especially
that Scotland has more transmitters per head than anywhere else
in the UK.

On top of that how do you stop people watching England/Wales/N.
Ireland TV progs? PSB1 carries six TV channels and about as many
radio, but only BBC1 is regionalised. Add to that that many
people along the English border watch English TV, and you only
have to put an English postcode into a Freesat box and you see
English TV wherever you are.

The ulimate answer is that we British-minus-Scotland viewers
would be subsidising - and heavily at that - the TV and radio of
another country, or as Steve Hewlett observed they are being
significantly subsidised even now - but Salmond always
conveniently overlooks that point.

I don't know if any readers here watch the text messages sent in
during Question Time on BBC1? One contributor last night observed
that he 'wondered if Nicola Sturgeon could manage a sentence that
did not include the word Scotland?'

I rest my case. :-))


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

In article ,
Woody wrote:
Interesting item on BBC Breakfast / Newswatch this morning. A
interview with Steve Hewlett about what could/would happen to
broadcasting in terms of licence etc post a Yes vote.

If you stop and think about it there are about 3m people in
Scotland

The accepted figure in in excess of 5 Million

and assuming families of three (!) and all holding a TV
licence (not) at c£145, the income would be £435m. Could an
entire broadcasting service of TV and radio plus all of the
transmitters be run from such an amount? I think not especially
that Scotland has more transmitters per head than anywhere else
in the UK.

I suspect that honour belongs to Wales.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:15:05 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article ,
Michael Chare [email protected] wrote:



Following independence the Scottish Government plans to honour all
existing TV and radio broadcasting licences to their expiry, maintaining
access to all the existing programming and content that people currently
enjoy.

Hmmm... To "expiry". Which they'd probably have to do for contractual
reasons anyway. But what then for, say, Channel 4?

... SBS will be funded by licence fee, which on independence will be
the same as the UK licence fee. All current licence fee payment
exemptions and concessions will be retained. We propose that the SBS
enters into a new formal relationship with the BBC as a joint venture,
where the SBS would continue to supply the BBC network with the same
level of programming, in return for continuing access to BBC services in
Scotland.

And the BBC's reaction is?...

Not clear to me how the same fee will cover both the SBS and BBC. Have the
feeling there may be a barny there. Maybe not free beer for *everyone* and
not sunny *every* day?

This will ensure

Even if the BBC or Westminster say "Depart and multiply, son!" ?

that the people of Scotland will still have access to
all current programming, including EastEnders, Dr Who, and Strictly Come
Dancing and to channels like CBeebies.

How about all *future* programming, particularly given that some gets
dumped *now* to make way for, say, Gaelic TV for six SNP supporters and
their pet sheep?

The problem is the one that runs though all their statements. They are
sweeping 'apirations', not a promise they can guarantee to fulfill.

Exactly, it's a wish list, nothing more.

Here's another example (sorry, going OT)

"The Scottish Government recognises it will be for the EU member
states, meeting under the auspices of the Council, to take forward the
most appropriate procedure under which an independent Scotland *will*
become a signatory to the EU Treaties at the point at which it becomes
independent"

My asterisks.
Not 'might' or 'could' or even 'should, but 'will', as if there is no
doubt on the matter.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:55:29 -0000, "Woody"
wrote:


If you stop and think about it there are about 3m people in
Scotland and assuming families of three (!) and all holding a TV
licence (not) at c£145, the income would be £435m. Could an
entire broadcasting service of TV and radio plus all of the
transmitters be run from such an amount? I think not especially
that Scotland has more transmitters per head than anywhere else
in the UK.

The population of Scotland is about 5.3m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland

RTE, the Republic of Ireland's (RoI) public service radio and TV
broadcaster, is funded by both a TV licence fee and advertising. The
population of that country is about 4.5m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland

RTE's income during 2012 was:

Commercial Revenue 156.3
Television Licence Revenue 180.9
(in millions of Euros)

That's from the annual report (pdf, 148 pages):
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/ab...or-the-web.pdf

The RoI has a commercial broadcasting sector but it's nowhere near the
scale, proportionately, of the UK's multiple commercial channels.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)