TV license

In article , Mike Henry
writes

Therefore - once again - how do YOU suggest they fund these new high
definition services that you are demanding of them?

I've no idea, and don't give a ****. That's up to them, they have
highly paid executives and marketing wonks to do their thinking for
them. How do _you_ suggest they are funded?

You seem to think we _need_ the ITV channels. Why?

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Mike Henry
writes

Therefore - once again - how do YOU suggest they fund these new high
definition services that you are demanding of them?

I've no idea, and don't give a ****. That's up to them, they have
highly paid executives and marketing wonks to do their thinking for
them. How do _you_ suggest they are funded?

You seem to think we _need_ the ITV channels. Why?

To keep the BBC on their toes ?

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

www.paras.org.uk

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Mike Henry
writes

Therefore - once again - how do YOU suggest they fund these new high
definition services that you are demanding of them?

I've no idea, and don't give a ****. That's up to them, they have
highly paid executives and marketing wonks to do their thinking for
them. How do _you_ suggest they are funded?

You seem to think we _need_ the ITV channels. Why?

To keep the BBC on their toes ?

IMO that is an important consideration.

The BBC was shaken out of complacency when ITV came along and its
programming improved significantly. Without the challenge of ITV the BBC
would have gone on just the way it was and challenging documentaries from
Granada and Thames TV would never have been produced.

Today, it appears the only viable model is subscription TV, Sky as the
private subscription service and the BBC as the public subscription service
for which we all pay. Sky might be though of as the alternative to the BBC
as ITV was, but when it comes to producing controversial content they are
simply not going there.

On that account some competitive challenge is needed to keep the BBC on its
toes but can this not be Ch4 with licence sharing, a bit more than just top
slicing ?

Roger R

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

It says circumstances have changed dramatically in the last few years.
Advertising revenue from the main services would normally subsidise a new
one until it establishes itself.

I rather think it indicates that independent television has become fat
and complacent and forgotten the maxim of commercial industry: adapt or
die. Right now it looks like the latter. This is a rude wake-up call
for them.

Newspapers etc are in trouble too due to
falling advertising revenue.

_Some_ papers are addressing this with energy and imagination. The
Guardian and Telegraph (both of whose sites I visit every day) are
showing willingness to adapt to the new paradigm.


In what way is it a paradigm? It is widely reported that the Guardian Group
are about to close down the Observer. The Telegraph isn't making any money.

--
JohnT

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
You want the licence fee to pay for ITV, Ch4 and Ch5?

No ta. Wouldn't give a **** if they vanished off the face of the earth.

Plenty would say the same about the BBC. If it saved the cost of a licence.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

It says circumstances have changed dramatically in the last few years.
Advertising revenue from the main services would normally subsidise a
new one until it establishes itself.

I rather think it indicates that independent television has become fat
and complacent and forgotten the maxim of commercial industry: adapt or
die. Right now it looks like the latter. This is a rude wake-up call
for them.

Well, the only way forward is to either increase their income or cut their
costs. And the vast majority of those costs is programme making. Economise
there and you're likely to lose viewers. Lose viewers and the advertising
income goes down.

Newspapers etc are in trouble too due to
falling advertising revenue.

_Some_ papers are addressing this with energy and imagination. The
Guardian and Telegraph (both of whose sites I visit every day) are
showing willingness to adapt to the new paradigm.

Ahem. Visiting those sites brings them no income. If you're interested in
their future you should be buying the paper.

Murdoch's recent announcement that News Group sites will soon start
charging for content made me laugh out loud. The guy may know how to
run newspapers but he hasn't a ****ing clue about the digital world.
It's going to be interesting to see how this pans out.

Think you need to realise at the end of the day things have got to be paid
for. It's one thing running a site as a spin off from a profitable
publication, but when that site starts taking over from your sales you're
in trouble.

The BBC are in rather a privileged position - everyone who wants to
watch off air TV has to fund them

Yes, and this is a bad thing?

Increasingly, yes. On one side - independent TV - there is a decline in
income, through market forces. The BBC on the other hand gets its income
regardless. And spends ridiculous sums on paying many of its senior staff
and presenters, etc.

In general, their output is high quality
and worth every penny of the licence fee.

In your opinion. Some of it is high quality - much of it rubbish. Perhaps
the balance is better than ITV - but not exclusively so. Especially
considering how much greater their income is.

I'm not a BBC acolyte - there is an enormous amount of waste, and
Private Eye can be depended on to let us know about the waste and idiocy
behind the scenes. But we _have_ to protect the BBC. It's ours, it
does what it does very, very well and is respected all over the world.
Like the Royal family, it defines Britain just as much as red telephone
boxes and cricket. We'd be mad to change the BBC in any big way.

You sound just like a BBC acolyte. ;-)

I thought Brian Gaff was onto something earlier - those who pay the
licence fee should receive a decoder card enabling them to access the
full range of BBC content. Those who don't get to suffer adverts and a
restricted set of channels with irritating overlays and/or
interruptions.

But we all already pay the licence fee and have to suffer BBC
'advertising' and on screen overlays. What makes you think they would
change this?

--
*Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

Well, the only way forward is to either increase their income or cut their
costs. And the vast majority of those costs is programme making. Economise
there and you're likely to lose viewers. Lose viewers and the advertising
income goes down.

Agreed. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. Perhaps the
"leave it to market forces" model doesn't actually work for broadcast
TV?

I'd be interested to hear what your answer to the problem is. Would you
want us to suffer the appalling dross that is shown in the States, for
example? 1000+ commercial channels, 99% of which are complete crap?

[newspaper websites]

Ahem. Visiting those sites brings them no income.

They show adverts. The more footfall on the site they show to their
advertisers the more they can charge for displaying ads. In theory.
Like the commercial TV channels

If you're interested in
their future you should be buying the paper.

I do. Crazy, huh?

Think you need to realise at the end of the day things have got to be paid
for.

Oh, I do. Hence why I'm in full time work and happy to pay the licence
fee, my taxes, insurances, etc.

It's very difficult for me to accept that we're now in the second
generation of families who have never worked, have never wanted to work,
and never will work but exist entirely on benefits. "Income" of 600 quid
a week for a family of 4 is common round here and they visibly live more
comfortably than I do (well, in fact I know they do.)

It's one thing running a site as a spin off from a profitable
publication, but when that site starts taking over from your sales you're
in trouble.

I understand The Guardian's ultimate intention is to transfer to an
online presence only. The paper is currently losing money, and so is
the website.

And spends ridiculous sums on paying many of its senior staff
and presenters, etc.

Indeed. Isn't someone supposed to be regulating those prats? Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes, etc. I suppose it's basic human nature, a la
MPs, bankers. etc.

What we need is some public flogging. Broadcast live on the BBC, of
course, with a red button option to pony up the credit card for close-up
shots or the chance to win the opportunity to flog someone of your
choosing.

In your opinion.

Of course. I am allowed to express opinions? ;o)

Some of it is high quality - much of it rubbish. Perhaps
the balance is better than ITV - but not exclusively so. Especially
considering how much greater their income is.

Their expenditure is greater. They have radio channels and the World
Service to fund too. (Which I cannot enjoy 'cos I'm deaf.) And they
fund a subtitling unit. And they contribute to funding the transmitter
network (which, remember, they built.)

The BBC also has several non-profit-making public service obligations
which it has to fund, including the requirement to transmit educational
content and to cover a wide range of spoken languages, for example.

All that said, if the Tories win next year's election, which
unfortunately I think they will, the BBC will not survive in its present
form. It'll be ruthlessly broken up and flogged off to the private
sector and the only winners will be the lawyers and the financial
"consultants". The Tories cannot accept that some public services
should stay in public hands; look at what happened to the railways.

I'm not against privatisation per se, but believe that it is
inappropriate for some entities.

You sound just like a BBC acolyte. ;-)

I am, really I do have a soft spot for the BBC. Perhaps I'm an
incurable romantic?

But we all already pay the licence fee and have to suffer BBC
'advertising' and on screen overlays. What makes you think they would
change this?

Think perhaps you misunderstood what I said. The idea is that we keep
the current fee system more or less as it is, on paying the fee you
receive a decoder card which when inserted in your digibox allows you to
watch the full range of BBC content.

Licence fee refuseniks, those who don't have a TV and those that use
their TV only to view non-BBC content could continue to do so without
being harrassed by TV Licensing.

To satisfy the BBC's public service obligation (for example, it'll be
the first channel that people will tune to in time of emergency) it will
need to transmit a basic unencrypted channel which everyone can receive.

It's only an idea. Whether it succeeded would depend very much on how
it was "sold" to the public, I think.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article , Mark Carver
writes


To keep the BBC on their toes ?

*nods*

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article , Mike Henry
writes

Well you're the one demanding ITV HD, C4 HD being FTA and Five HD.

Hardly demanding, it was a suggestion that the bandwidth currently
wasted on repeats and repeats+1 could be better utilized. Your reading
comprehension needs work.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
You want the licence fee to pay for ITV, Ch4 and Ch5?

No ta. Wouldn't give a **** if they vanished off the face of the earth.

Plenty would say the same about the BBC. If it saved the cost of a licence.

So make it optional with a decoder card, as per my other post.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png