Save the BBC: stop the cuts! [Link]

In article , Doctor D
wrote:
I recall hearing the news many years ago that the BBC would be showing the
national lottery on a Saturday night.

As I wondered how much Camelot were paying to get the BBC to show their
drivel, you can imagine my horror to find out that the BBC were actually
paying Camelot in a bid to increase ratings! Er, why?
If this is still the case it should cease forthwith. Let ITV show the
lottery and the BBC can save some money and show something that interests
the rest of us!

I've never understood that from day 1 either. What's so special about the
lottery that allows it to advertise on the publicly-funded BBC when everybody
else is forbidden?

Also, the lottery's adverts everywhere else presumably have to be paid for
like everybody else's, so why is it entitled to get its BBC advertising free?

Now you tell us it's not even free - the *BBC* pays *them*! Not a bad deal if
you can get it. I wonder if any other sort of business is entitled to this
special treatment, and if so, where do I apply?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article
,
Vet Tech wrote:
The current TV licence fee should be diverted into creating a
nationwide fibre optic network for the internet.

So TV progs cost nothing to make?

BTW, why should TV viewers' money be spent on something with at best a
tenuous connection to it?

Have a licence fee for computers if you wish everyone who uses one to pay
for that infrastructure.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Vet Tech wrote:
The current TV licence fee should be diverted into creating a
nationwide fibre optic network for the internet.

So TV progs cost nothing to make?

BTW, why should TV viewers' money be spent on something with at best a
tenuous connection to it?

Have a licence fee for computers if you wish everyone who uses one to pay
for that infrastructure.


There already is one planned, surely?

HMG intends to levy a tax of 50p per month on all 'phone lines to pay
for the expansion of broadband - though exactly how much of the tax will
actually be used for the purpose remains to be seen - it's unlikely to
be ring fenced ...

.... As the tax will, presumably, be to subsidise the improvement to BT
networks, particularly in non-cabled parts of the UK, I am not happy.

Why? Because, as a VM customer I'm already paying for the cost of VM's
infrastructure - why should I subsidise someone else? (I'm sure my VM
'phone line won't be tax exempt!) ...

.... If 50p a month, or such portion of it as the Treasury can grudgingly
be persuaded to part with, is considered to be enough to upgrade the
entire country, wouldn't a charge levied directly on the beneficiaries
of this super new network be more cost effective?

£1 to £2 per month, depending on speed, with ALL of it going to the
network provider, would surely produce a greater level of return than a
tax - and I will only have to pay it if I either change ISP or move to a
non cabled area. In such a case, I would consider the charge reasonable
(should I decide that I have a need for the 'supersonic' speeds that are
now available.)

--

Terry

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 08:44:38 -0800 (PST), Vet Tech
wrote:

Save the bbc? It needs castrating!

I would advocate cutting its budget by 90% or privatising it
completely and imposing the public service obligation on the buyer.

Like that would work. TV would be ever more dire than it is now.

The current TV licence fee should be diverted into creating a
nationwide fibre optic network for the internet.

Why?

The BBC has run out of control on salaries and expenses because all
the politicians are scared of cutting it back.

At least Jonathon Ross is going ;-)

The result is that the BBC has been empire building and expanding into
areas far beyond its brief eg Lonely Planet. It has gone on a massive
drive for ratings at the expense of the taxpayer with the result that
commercial TV and radio providers have been virtually bankrupted.

I can't understand why the BBC is trying to copy commercial TV
stations since it doesn't have to.

The self-indulgent madness at the BBC should be curtailed ASAP.

It's about time the BBC went back to it's roots and start trying to do
what it is supposed to.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:42:12 +0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Vet Tech wrote:
The current TV licence fee should be diverted into creating a
nationwide fibre optic network for the internet.

So TV progs cost nothing to make?

BTW, why should TV viewers' money be spent on something with at best a
tenuous connection to it?

Have a licence fee for computers if you wish everyone who uses one to pay
for that infrastructure.


There already is one planned, surely?

HMG intends to levy a tax of 50p per month on all 'phone lines to pay
for the expansion of broadband - though exactly how much of the tax will
actually be used for the purpose remains to be seen - it's unlikely to
be ring fenced ...

I very much doubt that this tax will ever be implemented.

... As the tax will, presumably, be to subsidise the improvement to BT
networks, particularly in non-cabled parts of the UK, I am not happy.

Why? Because, as a VM customer I'm already paying for the cost of VM's
infrastructure - why should I subsidise someone else? (I'm sure my VM
'phone line won't be tax exempt!) ...

"I'm alright jack" ;-)

... If 50p a month, or such portion of it as the Treasury can grudgingly
be persuaded to part with, is considered to be enough to upgrade the
entire country, wouldn't a charge levied directly on the beneficiaries
of this super new network be more cost effective?

£1 to £2 per month, depending on speed, with ALL of it going to the
network provider, would surely produce a greater level of return than a
tax - and I will only have to pay it if I either change ISP or move to a
non cabled area. In such a case, I would consider the charge reasonable
(should I decide that I have a need for the 'supersonic' speeds that are
now available.)

I pay the same as everyone else for an "up to 8M" ADSL connection
despite the fact I'll never get near half that speed. Is this fair?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:42:12 +0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Vet Tech wrote:
The current TV licence fee should be diverted into creating a
nationwide fibre optic network for the internet.
So TV progs cost nothing to make?

BTW, why should TV viewers' money be spent on something with at best a
tenuous connection to it?

Have a licence fee for computers if you wish everyone who uses one to pay
for that infrastructure.

There already is one planned, surely?

HMG intends to levy a tax of 50p per month on all 'phone lines to pay
for the expansion of broadband - though exactly how much of the tax will
actually be used for the purpose remains to be seen - it's unlikely to
be ring fenced ...

I very much doubt that this tax will ever be implemented.


Pleased to know that the Imprudent Gorgon is on his way out ...

... As the tax will, presumably, be to subsidise the improvement to BT
networks, particularly in non-cabled parts of the UK, I am not happy.

Why? Because, as a VM customer I'm already paying for the cost of VM's
infrastructure - why should I subsidise someone else? (I'm sure my VM
'phone line won't be tax exempt!) ...

"I'm alright jack" ;-)

No! As I said, I'm ALREADY paying for my ISP's infrastructure. Would you
like to contribute so that my bills go down?


... If 50p a month, or such portion of it as the Treasury can grudgingly
be persuaded to part with, is considered to be enough to upgrade the
entire country, wouldn't a charge levied directly on the beneficiaries
of this super new network be more cost effective?

£1 to £2 per month, depending on speed, with ALL of it going to the
network provider, would surely produce a greater level of return than a
tax - and I will only have to pay it if I either change ISP or move to a
non cabled area. In such a case, I would consider the charge reasonable
(should I decide that I have a need for the 'supersonic' speeds that are
now available.)

I pay the same as everyone else for an "up to 8M" ADSL connection
despite the fact I'll never get near half that speed. Is this fair?


If you're in a VM area, you already have a choice. If not, I suggest you
take the matter up with your ISP.

If you think you are being unfairly charged for a service you're not
getting, take it up with Trading Standards (or move!)

--

Terry

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:28:27 +0000, Terry Casey
wrote:


I pay the same as everyone else for an "up to 8M" ADSL connection
despite the fact I'll never get near half that speed. Is this fair?


If you're in a VM area, you already have a choice. If not, I suggest you
take the matter up with your ISP.

Not in a cabled area. There's nothing my ISP can/will do about it.

If you think you are being unfairly charged for a service you're not
getting, take it up with Trading Standards (or move!)

It's perfectly legal for ISPs to offer "up to 8M" products to people
who have no chance of getting near 8M. Personally I think one should
pay for the speed you actually get. This might motivate ISPs and BTw
to fix faults. My broadband speed has declined over the years but
no-one is prepared to do anything about it.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]