Scottish TV at the expense of the English and Welsh

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.

Finland and Norway manage, both with similar populations to Scotland (circa 5
to 5.5 million). Norway's NRK has a DTT and FM Tx network every bit as
extensive as ours (98ish% population coverage). Though both NRK and Finland's
YLE supplement their licence fees with advertising. Same for Denmark's DR,
only Sweden's SVT has no ads. However all four countries manage with each
other's programming reasonably available across the whole region. SVT and DR
have space on Norway's DTT muxes for instance.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article ,
JohnT wrote:
I don't think that the BBC can offer any opinion on this.

The BBC shouldn't have an *opinion*. They should be, and probably
are, making plans to deal with various possibilities. If so they
should tell us what they are. They shouldn't be keeping anything
secret.

-- Richard

In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


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.

That's the excuse they are using. Alas in the real world *refusing* to say
anything simply causes doubt and uncertainty - thus influencing people
towards saying 'no' if they want BBC access. So I'm afraid that in reality
saying nothing *is* influencing people. Like it not, they will do so. Might
as well do it as a result of honesy rather than ducking. Being kept in the
dark when you know there is a risk of losing something you'd like to keep
deters people from choosing a change that might bring that risk.

I also think that, Constitutionally, the BBC would be wrong to say
anything.

They would be wrong to express any preference wrt the vote they would
prefer. But they still need to say what they think would be practical, and
what any costs / consequences may be for any plans offerred by others like
the SNP. Otherwise they are denying people the ability to have info they
need to make an informed choice.


If Scotland votes for independence it would be for the then
British/Northern Irish Government to determine the level of co-operation
with Scotland.

Erm. Since Scotland would be involved in "co-operation" they'd also have a
say in coming to any agreement, should the vote be 'yes'. But part of that
would involve them all consulting the BBC on the practicalities - when it
will be too late for voters to take it into account.

The problem is the absence of facts about what any given agreement of
"co-operation" would entail for the BBC and how practical/costly they'd
find it. And what might simply be impossible given the finding, regardless
of the wishful thinking of politicians making promises on any side.

In a whole load of things, of which broadcasting is a relatively
unimportant component.

Can't have it both ways. If it is "unimportant", then the BBC giving info
won't matter to the decision. No need for them to be so shy a maiden.
However it seems to me to be important enough that the above excuse should
not be used to justify people being left without the relevant info because
the BBC are too scared to give it.

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

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

In article , Michael
Chare [email protected] wrote:


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.

Indeed.

In fact, what would a Scots Goverment dare do if the BBC/Westminster said:

"We're not interested in your proposals. We'll just cease conventional
broadcasting in Scotland but supply via the internet to homes in Scotland
who pay us a fee. One set by us, not you, sunshine!"

They could then charge per prog, or some fees that could be quite different
to south of the line. As suited them, not a Scots government. Particularly
if many people wanted the access.

FWIW I've noticed recently that the SNP are making noises about the way
they have wonderful plans to spread superfast to rural areas, etc. Look odd
if at the same time they start trying to censor/block such material to
people in Scotland willing to pay for it. Particularly if people started
using VPNs, etc. Not exactly the wonderful 'free' new land...

The question there is what might best suit the BBC or what they find
practical/impractical. Given that has cost implications something like the
above might suit Westminster just dandy. erm, sorry not 'Dandy', so I'll
say 'wizard' instead. :-)

I'm ignoring quite what happens wrt satellite, of course. But I wonder what
games could be played there as well.

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

"charles" wrote in message
...
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.




As far as I can count Wales has about 168 and Scotland including
the islands has about 185 counting those with mixed polarity as
one only. On a percpaita basis then Wales does have more but they
are mostly a lot easier to get at!


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
JohnT wrote:
I don't think that the BBC can offer any opinion on this.

The BBC shouldn't have an *opinion*. They should be, and probably
are, making plans to deal with various possibilities. If so they
should tell us what they are. They shouldn't be keeping anything
secret.

The worry (for them) is a significant number of people in Scotland will use
the question of whether BBC programmes will still be available or not, to
influence their voting choice.

You really can't have such an important democratic decision such as
independence, influenced by a public fear they won't get to see EastEnders
and SCD ever again. It's absolutely right the BBC remain tight lipped IMHO.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Woody wrote:

As far as I can count Wales has about 168 and Scotland including
the islands has about 185 counting those with mixed polarity as
one only. On a percpaita basis then Wales does have more but they
are mostly a lot easier to get at!

I don't know how old you list is, but I make it (give or take one or two)

Scotland 225 @ 5.3 million, one per 23.56k

Wales 187 @ 3.0 million, one per 16.04k

Wales wins, and also Wales wins hands down if you're playing Tx site name
Scrabble



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:

The worry (for them) is a significant number of people in Scotland will use
the question of whether BBC programmes will still be available or not, to
influence their voting choice.

And indeed they will.

You really can't have such an important democratic decision such as
independence, influenced by a public fear they won't get to see EastEnders
and SCD ever again.

I'm not sure what SCD is, but its not up to the government or the BBC
to decide the basis that we make our decision on. We have a right to know
what the likely consequences of our choice are, even if you think we
should be deciding on some other basis.

-- Richard

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:47:22 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
JohnT wrote:
I don't think that the BBC can offer any opinion on this.

The BBC shouldn't have an *opinion*. They should be, and probably
are, making plans to deal with various possibilities. If so they
should tell us what they are. They shouldn't be keeping anything
secret.

The worry (for them) is a significant number of people in Scotland will use
the question of whether BBC programmes will still be available or not, to
influence their voting choice.

You really can't have such an important democratic decision such as
independence, influenced by a public fear they won't get to see EastEnders
and SCD ever again. It's absolutely right the BBC remain tight lipped IMHO.

Are you speaking tongue in cheek? Surely the voters have every right
to know ALL the implications of their choice.

Stephen wrote:

- who runs all the regulator bits - Scottish Ofcom?

SCOFCOM

Bill