End of the BBC

[commandlinegamer]

What with Murdoch throwing his support behind the Tories, after his much publicised rants against the BBC 'monopoly'*, what chance now for the corporation to remain in its present form when Dave takes over? Won't they just carve it up and sell off the parts to the highest bidder?

*-They're not the only ones: Sky's monopoly over local radio news was covered in a recent Private Eye.

[Harryprice]

As someone who doesn't have Sky, I look at their schedules and can't see any compelling reason to buy a dish. However, travelling around, every other house seems to have one. So perhaps Sky just needs to improve what they show if they want more people to watch rather than moaning about the BBC.

[brianp]

What with Murdoch throwing his support behind the Tories, after his much publicised rants against the BBC 'monopoly'*, what chance now for the corporation to remain in its present form when Dave takes over? Won't they just carve it up and sell off the parts to the highest bidder?

*-They're not the only ones: Sky's monopoly over local radio news was covered in a recent Private Eye.

Would you want it to remain in its present form? Should every UK householder be forced to contribute to the production and dissemination of such mind-numbing banality as "Eastenders", "Doctors" or "Strictly Come Dancing"?

Personally I think the BBC should leave such tat to the commercial sector and instead concentrate on being a public-service broadcaster which seeks only to inform and educate. I'd be happy to see such a service funded by a much-reduced licence fee or, indeed, by general taxation. But I strongly object to paying a license fee which funds rubbish programmes and pays the obscene salaries of the likes of Ross, Wogan and Moyles.

[commandlinegamer]

There's much I don't like about the BBC, including some of the programmes/stars you mentioned. But I realize they have to provide content for a wide audience and I think even Reith wanted to entertain the public as well as inform and educate.

If the extra digital channels were to go, I wouldn't be too unhappy if it meant an improvement in quality on 1 and 2.

And banality is nothing new. Remember Terry and June?

[Croydon Bob]

And banality is nothing new. Remember Terry and June?

Opening credits rolling over film of Terry and June wandering around the Whitgift Centre in Croydon. Who could forget such excitement? :cheesy:

[polomint38]

Opening credits rolling over film of Terry and June wandering around the Whitgift Centre in Croydon. Who could forget such excitement? :cheesy:

Are they relatives Bob? ;D;D

Everyone in Croydon is related to every else aren't they. >:D

[Harryprice]

Opening credits rolling over film of Terry and June wandering around the Whitgift Centre in Croydon. Who could forget such excitement? :cheesy:

Like this (http://adam.vox.com/library/video/6a00c11413dbae819d00d4143903d8685e.html)...

I notice Sky doesn't make much in the way of its own programmes, unlike the BBC.

[Croydon Bob]

Everyone in Croydon is related to every else aren't they. >:D

>:-) Croydon is NOT in Norfolk. We have one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the UK.


Like this (http://adam.vox.com/library/video/6a00c11413dbae819d00d4143903d8685e.html)...

Fantastic. haven't seen that since... well... a long long time ago. Of course, as we all remember, they actually lived in Purley (nudge nudge wink wink say no more).

[chaggle]

Like this (http://adam.vox.com/library/video/6a00c11413dbae819d00d4143903d8685e.html)...


Why didn't they just get out their mobiles?

[Tony Williams]

My feelings about the licence-fee BBC are similar to Churchill's on democracy: it's the worst possible system, except for all of the others.

For Murdoch to complain about its monopoly position is ludicrous, considering his obvious ambition to own everything. I flatly refuse to subscribe to Sky, on principle (or buy his newspapers).

[Graham Lappin]

Whilst a great supporter of the BBC, especially it's World Service I do think the licence fee is doomed.

I can remember when you had to have a licence for a radio. In the days of valves, radios were big boxes that sat in the corner of the room and took several minutes to "warm up". Then along came transistor radios and things changed dramatically. I can remember the man from the BBC going around (I think it was Brighton Beach) asking sunbathers to produce a licence for their transistor radio.

The problem to me is that there is an establishment that try to hold on the old ways of doing things, despite movements in the technology. TV technology today is simply not the same as it was when the licence fee was introduced and so like it or not, I can't see how it can really be sustained.

[Harryprice]

Here's an argument for the licence fee - press freedom! With print newspapers rapidly becoming economically unviable, there soon won't be the money to pay proper journalists, so who knows where our news will come from. Blogs? Government agencies? Lobby groups? The BBC may be the last unbiased news source with actual journalists in the country soon.

[commandlinegamer]

Is the press doomed? I think people will still continue to buy papers for some time to come, but I was under the impression the vast majority of the income came from advertising not from the cover price. But you can't compete with the Internet for time; second-by-second stories are developing and can be reported as quickly.

Getting back to the original topic, one of Cameron's spokesmen, Hunt IIRC, talked this week about ripping up the BBC Charter when it's up for renewal.

[Graham Lappin]

Here's an argument for the licence fee - press freedom! ....

Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean it is sustainable. Good or bad the licence fee system is doomed because technology inexorably marches on.

[Floppit]

If it was just for one reason, this reason alone would have me willing to pay my licence fee. The BBC News website - more specifically that they, more than any other site I've happened to chance upon, reference.

Other than that while many of the programs don't suit my taste I accept they are supposed to cater for the whole nation, all of whom pay and therefore if enough want to watch drivel like Doctors, it's justified! Alongside that the BBC is still catering for me, programs like Horizon, and The Story of Maths.

I would be very sad to see it privatised, I have enjoyed it all my life - I guess I'm just not one of the nay sayers.

[Fiona]

Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean it is sustainable. Good or bad the licence fee system is doomed because technology inexorably marches on.


I seem to be missing your point. Why are changes in technology relevant to how the BBC is funded?

[Matt]

I seem to be missing your point. Why are changes in technology relevant to how the BBC is funded?

The rationale used was inductive. The radio licence needed ot be reformed after radios became portable. At the very least this proves that changes in technology can cause changes to the licensing regime.

Now TV's are very portable, much of the BBC's content is delivered on-line changes to reflect this have already been floated.

[Fiona]

The rationale used was inductive. The radio licence needed ot be reformed after radios became portable. At the very least this proves that changes in technology can cause changes to the licensing regime.

Now TV's are very portable, much of the BBC's content is delivered on-line changes to reflect this have already been floated.

Well it is certainly true that you used to need a licence for radio: and certainly that was revoked when radios became portable. But I am not sure it was because they became portable. Was it not rather the spread of television. If you had a television you got a combined licence: so people were no longer buying the radio licence in large numbers. I do not know what the costs of producing and administering radio licences was but I suspect that was at least part of the reason for the change.

I can see that there is a problem: apparently you need not have a licence if you only watch television programmes after they have been broadcast, and this is easily done on computer. If it is true that people are likely to get rid of their tv's in favour of this or some other method of accessing what they want to watch then, indeed, the funding will have to be done some other way.

I do not know to what extent this is happening so it may be that this is a real problem

The bulk of the arguments against a licence fee do not rest on this, however. The ones I have seen tend to found on unfair competition and unfair mandatory charges on people who say they "never" use, watch or listen to BBC output. Some also say that government control of the media is a bad thing in itself (though I have only heard Americans use that argument, I confess)

As was mentioned upthread there are some who argue in favour of a much reduced BBC, but still funded by licence. I think that is a disastrous idea. If it is really true that the licence is doomed because people will not have tv's in the future then I hope it will be paid for out of general or hypothecated taxation: it is a question of who is to be master. I prefer that there is a source of news etc which is not wholly dependent on the corporate sector for its survival. The BBC is far from perfect but I think it does a good job and I have some confidence in its independence and impartiality.

[Matt]

I know at least two people who have given up their TV and licence in favour of a computer and lovefilm subscription. Only one of them regularly uses iPlayer the other of course is gritting her teeth against the possibility that she might have to pay a license for her PC.
Seems to me restricting on-line content to licence payers is the better option.

[Graham Lappin]

I seem to be missing your point. Why are changes in technology relevant to how the BBC is funded?

It's a matter of enforcement. A TV licence fee works if there is a set in your house. If however you watch it over the internet, on your mobile phone or even on small portable receivers, then it's far more difficult to enforce.

As I said earlier, the same thing happened when small portable transistor radios arrived. Prior to those, a radio was much bigger and required a licence. With the advent of transistor radios, the BBC tried to enforce a radio licence fee for a time but eventually gave up. My point is that it seems to me that history is repeating itself.

[Graham Lappin]

Well it is certainly true that you used to need a licence for radio: and certainly that was revoked when radios became portable. But I am not sure it was because they became portable. Was it not rather the spread of television. If you had a television you got a combined licence: so people were no longer buying the radio licence in large numbers. I do not know what the costs of producing and administering radio licences was but I suspect that was at least part of the reason for the change.

I don't remembering it being that way, but I accept my memory could be at fault. I recall there being a step wise shift in the way the licence fee was administered in an attempt to resist any real change. I don't believe however, the change in the way it was administered would have occurred if radios had continued to be large and bulky things plugged into the mains.

[commandlinegamer]

Can TV ever be as portable as radio though? I can ride the bus, train, walk, drive a car, all while listening to radio. For me personally. watching TV would only be feasible on the train, as only that would be a steady enough journey to avoid eyestrain and headaches.

[Graham Lappin]

Can TV ever be as portable as radio though? I can ride the bus, train, walk, drive a car, all while listening to radio. For me personally. watching TV would only be feasible on the train, as only that would be a steady enough journey to avoid eyestrain and headaches.

My iPod is pretty portable. I can record/down load TV programs and watch them later on my little iPod, particularly on air flights and it seems to work for me perfectly well. Irrespective of what one individual may or may not find practical, the technology for highly mobile TV is here.

[newatheist]

Would you want it to remain in its present form? Should every UK householder be forced to contribute to the production and dissemination of such mind-numbing banality as "Eastenders", "Doctors" or "Strictly Come Dancing"?

Personally I think the BBC should leave such tat to the commercial sector and instead concentrate on being a public-service broadcaster which seeks only to inform and educate. I'd be happy to see such a service funded by a much-reduced licence fee or, indeed, by general taxation. But I strongly object to paying a license fee which funds rubbish programmes and pays the obscene salaries of the likes of Ross, Wogan and Moyles.

I totally agree, but they don't seem to be too good at that either. I don't know if anyone here noticed but the BBC watchdog show was having a go at sony for defective hardware (PS3) and it turned out that their reporter was a Microsoft employee, MS makes the XBOX360 (infamous for high failure rates), which competes with the PS3. The piece was mocked by people in the gaming industry.

So I doubt the BBC can actually inform or educate anyone.:'(

Although the Attenborough stuff is still pretty nice.O0

[panama]

For all it's faults the BBC is the best way of getting any sort of intelligent programming. I have a Sky dish but I find that I rarely watch any output from channels other than the terrestial stations and their digital "little brothers" (BBC 4, ITV3, etc) and even those I do occasionally watch are running repeats of old BBC programmes!

Does anybody watch Sky 1, 2 or 3? As far as I can see the only thing worth watching on those channels is The Simpsons.

Remember that the licence fee also funds BBC Radio. Would any commercial body wish to bankroll a station with the remit of Radio4?

[farmersboy]

The BBC has to be worth keeping just for the fact that there are no bloody adverts!

[Croydon Bob]

While I accept the point made by "newatheist" about Watchdog and the PS3 (I'm very happy with my PS3 and use it to watch BBC iPlayer programmes almost every day), the same prog exposed Adrian Pengelly only weeks ago.

Of course such a large organisation is going to make mistakes, programmes I don't like, etc.

I'm broadly in agreement with the comments of "panama" and "farmersboy" above. And Floppit's support for the BBC news website.

[Cuddles]

My iPod is pretty portable. I can record/down load TV programs and watch them later on my little iPod, particularly on air flights and it seems to work for me perfectly well. Irrespective of what one individual may or may not find practical, the technology for highly mobile TV is here.

The technology for highly mobile TV has been around for a long time. There were portable TVs, not much bigger than an iPod, around when I was in primary school. I may not be the oldest person here, but the 80s weren't all that recent. They never caught on for one simple reason - no-one actually wants to watch TV on a screen that small. They're a bit more popular now since the TV is generally an additional function on some other device rather than a separate gadget, but that doesn't change the fact that more people just don't like it. Unlike phones, music players and so on, TVs have been steadily getting bigger, not smaller.

Until we get little projectors built into our sunglasses so we don't have to squint at a tiny little screen (not long, hopefully), I doubt mobile TVs will be much more than a fairly small niche market.

That said, I can't see any real reason for keeping the license fee. How many people are there that actually don't have a TV at all, or don't watch BBC content online? Very few, and probably mostly older people. A license made sense when a significant number of people didn't have TVs. Now that pretty much everyone does, why not just pay for it with regular taxes?

[gammidgy]

Full funding of the BBC by the Treasury can only be considered alongside a change to the BBC's charter, to stop the corporation from needlessly competing with the commercial channels in the mass-market entertainment genres that are all ready well served: "reality", soaps, lifestyle and game shows.

Without that change then I demand my right as a consumer not to subscribe to a service that doesn't deliver what I want. I've been without a TV licence, and hence broadcast TV of any sort, for 7 years now and there is very little I feel I miss out on. Lovefilm and youtube satisfy me.

The government already subsidises education and the arts. I have no problem with them also directly funding education and arts public service broadcasting, but why should my taxes pay for mind-rotting tripe designed only to steal viewers from ITV?

[asthmatic camel]

It's a matter of enforcement. A TV licence fee works if there is a set in your house. If however you watch it over the internet, on your mobile phone or even on small portable receivers, then it's far more difficult to enforce.

As I said earlier, the same thing happened when small portable transistor radios arrived. Prior to those, a radio was much bigger and required a licence. With the advent of transistor radios, the BBC tried to enforce a radio licence fee for a time but eventually gave up. My point is that it seems to me that history is repeating itself.

I don't think you can compare the two. HD TVs are selling well, and will continue to do so, precisely because they are large and provide an excellent picture. It's going to be a long time before most households don't have equipment which requires a licence fee.

[commandlinegamer]

why should my taxes pay for mind-rotting tripe designed only to steal viewers from ITV?

I find there's little on ITV I want to watch. The days of decent drama and quality investigative journalism have long gone with all the strong regional programming having been homogenized into lowest-common-denominator drivel.

Of course TV in general is mind-rotting tripe. If I had money, maybe I'd go white-water rafting or BASE jumping; but I don't so it's the idiot box for my leisure time.

[gammidgy]

I don't think you can compare the two. HD TVs are selling well, and will continue to do so, precisely because they are large and provide an excellent picture. It's going to be a long time before most households don't have equipment which requires a licence fee.

The change will come before then. The critical factor is when a sufficient number of licence payers believe they are being cheated, either because they perceive they are paying so that others can watch for free, or because they are not getting value for money from the BBC. It's all subjective, and the nation's mood could change very quickly.

And to be clear, you don't need a licence to own a TV, only to receive a broadcast signal.

[skbuncks]

And to be clear, you don't need a licence to own a TV, only to receive a broadcast signal.

Nor do you need to let them into your house when they come knocking,* and never ever ever sign any piece of paper they may thrust you way.

skb

*unless they have a court order to do so.

[panama]

The change will come before then. The critical factor is when a sufficient number of licence payers believe they are being cheated


A number which is getting larger everyday thanks to campaigns in certain newspapers against the BBC. (I wonder who owns those newspapers?;))

[asthmatic camel]

And to be clear, you don't need a licence to own a TV, only to receive a broadcast signal.

Correct, but how many people spend a small fortune buying an HD TV without wishing to be able to watch a broadcast channel?

Very few, probably.

[SimonC]

Slightly O/T, but something I've occasionally wondered about - do detector vans actually work? Is it possible for equipment, in a mobile van, to detect a TV set and locate it in someone's house?

Obviously, it's easy enough to detect a signal being transmitted, but how does that work for a receiver ( a TV set )? I've never been entirely sure about that... :-[

[brianp]

Slightly O/T, but something I've occasionally wondered about - do detector vans actually work? Is it possible for equipment, in a mobile van, to detect a TV set and locate it in someone's house?

Obviously, it's easy enough to detect a signal being transmitted, but how does that work for a receiver ( a TV set )? I've never been entirely sure about that... :-[

TV tuners emit weak RF signals.

[SimonC]

TV tuners emit weak RF signals.

Sure, but don't a great many household appliances do the same? Is it really possible for someone sitting in a van in the street to point a dish/antenna at a house and determine if a TV is switched on, and its precise location?

[bruce]

Is it really possible for someone sitting in a van in the street to point a dish/antenna at a house and determine if a TV is switched on, and its precise location?


Yes.
As a Post Office apprentice in 1979, I saw the equipment and technique demonstrated. At the time, it was P.O. technicians (later to be B.T.) who manned the detector vans and operated the gear, their day to day work was investigating RF interference.
It was remarkably simple to use a direction antenna, and to display the the waveform of the RF oscillator in the TV. By comparing the waveform side by side with the broadcast signal, it was simple to show that it was a TV, and not some other source, and even identify the channel that was being watched.

Of course, our multi-channel systems have complicated things rather, but the detection technology has moved on too.

[SimonC]

Very many thanks for that informative answer, Bruce!

I had occasionally, idly wondered whether the publicised threat of detector vans might be something of a 'bogey man' - just something to scare people into buying a TV licence.

Now I know the answer. And I never mind being shown that my thinking is wrong, if I learn something new in return. O0

[bruce]

No problemo, Simon. :)

[brianp]

Sure, but don't a great many household appliances do the same? Is it really possible for someone sitting in a van in the street to point a dish/antenna at a house and determine if a TV is switched on, and its precise location?

It is even possible with televisions and, more worryingly, computer monitors, to intercept signals radiated by the LCD/CRT and reconstruct the actual image currently displayed on its screen. Other parts of TVs and computers and associated gear also radiate signals which can be intercepted and analysed.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7863852/A-Trial-of-the-Interception-of-Display-Image-Using-Emanation-of-Electromagnetic-Wave

[SimonC]

That's amazing, Brian - I had no idea that detection equipment could possibly be so sensitive. Very many thanks for the fascinating link. O0

[Croydon Bob]

I had occasionally, idly wondered whether the publicised threat of detector vans might be something of a 'bogey man' - just something to scare people into buying a TV licence.

Now I know the answer. And I never mind being shown that my thinking is wrong, if I learn something new in return. O0

Ah, but...

How many of these vans are there in use now? What are the chances of them driving past my house?

The Beeb have a database of every address anyway, and write letters to any address that doesn't have a licence. Someone I know has had annual visits from them demanding to be let in to check for a TV. They clearly haven't been using a detector because he doesn't have a TV.

So, I accept that the technology works, and that the BBC used to use it, but do they still? If so, do they rely on it or is it just a 'bogey man' threat?

[fotworth]

Your in the EU and can expect your TV licence to morph into a Media Tax payable by every postal adress. Finland are piloting it and they it start next year. YLE is thir equivalent to the BBC.
Link translated to english here http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fi&u=http://yle.fi/uutiset/talous_ja_politiikka/article700179.ece&ei=gvvyS4zIIoaimwOy5bmVDQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmediamaksu%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfiref ox-a%26hs%3Deto%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official .8-)

[bindeweede]

Your in the EU

Does this mean you aren't? I'm guessing Ickeland or Turdistan.

[brianp]

Your in the EU and can expect your TV licence to morph into a Media Tax payable by every postal adress. Finland are piloting it and they it start next year. YLE is thir equivalent to the BBC.

Keep up to date, Finland is keeping its current system - a licence fee payable by every household with a television - until further notice because their parliament doesn't support the proposed change.

http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index/tietoa/uutiset/2010/P_13.html
http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index/tietoa.html

And what on earth did that have to do with the EU or indeed with the UK. The financing of national broadcasters is the remit of national governments, not the EU? The proposed Finnish changes were a Finnish initiative for Finland - nothing whatsoever to do with the the EU and certainly not a "pilot" for any sort of EU-wide changes.

[fotworth]

Finnish changes were a Finnish initiative for Finland - nothing whatsoever to do with the the EU and certainly not a "pilot" for any sort of EU-wide changes.



European model for television operations

http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index/tietoa.html

European model is not finish model strange choise of words for the finnish communications regulatory authority. Like the lisbon treaty and the Irish vote. The 'model' will pop up repeatedly in vairious countrys.No country will abolish its TV licence without an alternative revenue.

[brianp]

European model for television operations

http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index/tietoa.html

European model is not finish model strange choise of words for the finnish communications regulatory authority. Like the lisbon treaty and the Irish vote. The 'model' will pop up repeatedly in vairious countrys.No country will abolish its TV licence without an alternative revenue.

Yes, you twat - it's a page about their current system ie the TV License payable by households with TVs. It's simply saying that their current system is the "European model" as "used in all other Nordic countries and nearly all western European countries".

[skbuncks]

Yes, you twat - it's a page about their current system ie the TV License payable by households with TVs. It's simply saying that their current system is the "European model" as "used in all other Nordic countries and nearly all western European countries".


Calm down brian, I think foolsworth is just trying for the record for 'number of threads to be wrong in' (so far every single one its posted in).

skb

[fotworth]

Calm down brian, I think foolsworth is just trying for the record for 'number of threads to be wrong in' (so far every single one its posted in).

skb

Its healthy to get exited when you expose twat,stand proud and get in there its a right good crack dont sbuncks it up to early. Enjoy the ride :-*

THE WAR AGAINST TERROR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUTHUtD5dDk

[tolman]

Its healthy to get exited...
Well, then, I hope someone exits you.

[Croydon Bob]

Well, then, I hope someone exits you.

My psychic powers tell me that it is going to happen very soon. ;)

[polomint38]

Well, then, I hope someone exits you.


My psychic powers tell me that it is going to happen very soon. ;)

http://images.zaazu.com/img/rambo-rambo-john-gun-smiley-emoticon-000137-large.gif

[Drop Bear]

Its healthy to get exited I can't help but agree in your case,at least for those around you.>:D




Graffito London: All skinheads are basted.
Underneath someone has written: "Yes indeed,they frequently are, however I prefer them roasted in foil and served with a piquant sauce"