I don't believe you
Government could ban BBC from showing top shows at peak times
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
I don't believe you
The government could privitise either, both, neither or simply parts of... that isn't fundamentally important as far as the model by which they could be run is concerned. The fact is we have a public service broadcaster that doesn't require license fees and I'm still not seeing any good reason why we need license fees for the BBC to put on shows like The Voice and EastEnders or to play pop music on Radio 1.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,812
- Location
- Leicestershire
Get rid tbh. They will have to be like ITV and the other free channels and be efficient.
I'm a 40 year old male, no interest in those DR Who or The Voice etc. Last thing I watched was the World Cup a few years back. I'd like to tell them where to stick their license fee!
The BBC have 28000 employees .. ITV *makes do* with 4000.
Are you saying the BBC are inefficient!
What do you watch on TV now?
My issue is a mandatory license fee being used to provide content by a single broadcaster that is little different to that provided by commercial broadcasters - there is no need for EastEnders, Radio 1 etc.. to be funded by license fees. 'Because those things aren't free' doesn't answer that criticism. Those are things are directly equivalent to content provided by commercial broadcasters without the need for license fee subsidy. They're using a subsidy from the public to fund things that directly compete and draw revenue away from UK businesses.
If the BBC can run a commercial arm in the rest of the world without it compromising them I don't see why they can't also run one in the UK for most of that sort of content.
Last edited:
Fortitude
Harlen Corben's The Five
Stan Lee's Lucky Man
The Tunnel
The Tunnel Sabotage
Hogfather
Going Postal
The Colour of Magic
The Light Fantastic
Fungus the Bogeyman (apparently great fun for kids but I haven't seen it)
Co-produced the 4400 and part financed Battlestar Galactica.
They also produce a lot of comedy shows and don't forget they also produce a 24 hour news channel, 1000's of hours of adverts that you also see on terrestrial commercial stations, Radio and TV news and 7 Sports channels every day.
Wikipedia has a list of Sky One's original programming here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sky_1
but there's also
Cherry picking the best shows Sky (and other UK channels) have brought in does not show that UK TV is rubbish. There are literally thousands of shows made in the US that don't make it over here. Some of them are OK, many are very poor indeed.
BBC America is also very popular in the US and elsewhere where available but not every program on there is made by the BBC.
So why the need for a license fee to subsidise that content then?
Do you mean why a license fee as opposed to something else? Presumably you aren't asking why an income source is required to pay for things.
I'd be quite happy for the BBC to be funded from taxation but I wouldn't expect the transition to happen in a way that kept their budgets intact.
If you're concerned with commercial rivals seeing unfair competition from the BBC then advertising should be the last thing you want to see the BBC funded by. It also wouldn't be fair to ask them to survive relying on advertising funding while also demanding they fulfil the role of a public service broadcaster. And if they aren't a PSB then they aren't the BBC.
I'd be quite happy for the BBC to be funded from taxation but I wouldn't expect the transition to happen in a way that kept their budgets intact.
If you're concerned with commercial rivals seeing unfair competition from the BBC then advertising should be the last thing you want to see the BBC funded by. It also wouldn't be fair to ask them to survive relying on advertising funding while also demanding they fulfil the role of a public service broadcaster. And if they aren't a PSB then they aren't the BBC.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 9 May 2005
- Posts
- 866
- Location
- Devon
BBC and its licence fee is awesome, better than paying Sky to watch adverts
I'll repost this as it already answers that.
I'd be too for areas that actually need it - stick most of it into a commercial arm and top up funding to any public service elements that can't be wholly subsidised by the commercial revenues
Yet Channel 4 has managed for years... if the BBC does have greater need for funding for its PSB requirements then direct funding from govt or a much reduced license fee or tax on TV set sales etc..could top it up. My point is in regards to license fees being used to provide content that might as well be commercial content, including buying shows/formats from overseas such as the voice etc..
Last edited:
That list is weak no octonauts
I don't really watch telly, but I leave the Discovery channel on pretty much all time I'm messing about on the web.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
The trouble is that those who propose some sort of breakup, spin-off and privatization of the BBC, always remain quiet on its public mission and the subject of a lack of a strong media regulator in the UK. But there may be some room for an iPlayer-Max model whenever Broadband Britain finally happens.
Let's see how far this 'ban' gets in Parliament.
Let's see how far this 'ban' gets in Parliament.
It seems like a lot of hassle for very little actual change. Moving to an advertiser funded model for the mainstream programming would reduce ad spend with other broadcasters, sort of the problem that is claimed to be the reasoning behind stopping the BBC from getting into scheduling wars. Like it or not, the mission is to "educate, inform, entertain", you can't remove the entertain part because ITV are struggling to get advertisers on board.
Subscription would push costs up for everybody as a result of less revenue as people didn't subscribe (due to watching no BBC content at all but needing the license for other broadcasters), and the costs in actually paywalling the content in the first place.
What problems are solved by this, other than the objection to commercial broadcasters having to deal with competition from the BBC?
Nothing that the National History Unit puts out interests you in any way then?
I'm not having a go, I just think "nothing on the BBC interests me" is a cop-out answer. If you choose not to watch it then fair enough but that's a different complaint.
Subscription would push costs up for everybody as a result of less revenue as people didn't subscribe (due to watching no BBC content at all but needing the license for other broadcasters), and the costs in actually paywalling the content in the first place.
What problems are solved by this, other than the objection to commercial broadcasters having to deal with competition from the BBC?
Nothing that the National History Unit puts out interests you in any way then?
I'm not having a go, I just think "nothing on the BBC interests me" is a cop-out answer. If you choose not to watch it then fair enough but that's a different complaint.
Last edited: