BBC license fee proposals...

[stewski]

But surely it is a bit late - if advertising affects their editorial control then we've already gone beyond that point as there is 1.5 billion in revenue generated by the part of the BBC that sells advertising overseas and sells content to commercial broadcasters

non sequitur some commercialisation has an effect, so greater commercialisation will have no more effect. I think the nuance of what Chomsky has suggested is that the exact adverts that run during a show have an effect on the editorial content of those show.

To suggest that some corners of the beeb are commercial so more of it should be commercialised without negative impact is simply disingenuous.

 

[Werewolf]

But surely it is a bit late - if advertising affects their editorial control then we've already gone beyond that point as there is 1.5 billion in revenue generated by the part of the BBC that sells advertising overseas and sells content to commercial broadcasters

BBC:WW has no influence on what is commissioned in the UK.
At best they can pitch an idea (like any production company) or part fund a show that the BBC is already looking to do as part of the package to get the rights to sell it overseas (BBC:WW has to bid for rights the same as any other distributor, but it can also like other distributors/production companies go to the BBC with an idea).

Basically the relationship is no different between the BBC and BBC:WW than it is between say BBC:WW and ITV, or ITV Studios and the BBC (ITV actually make some content for the BBC, and BBC:WW has been involved in productions and funding for stuff to be shown on ITV).

The only difference between BBC:WW and other distributors is that because it is owned by the BBC, BBC:WW's operational profit largely goes back to the BBC rather than just the money from the licensing of the content (so effectively the BBC gets about an extra 8-10%* compared to selling the content to another distributor under exactly the same conditions).


*Or whatever the distributors cut of any profits is (iirc in publishing the agent who arranges such deals normally gets about 10%).

 

[APM]

Some good marketing and any non UK IP address without a licence number attached to it and I could see the beeb being fully self funding rather quickly,no?

60 or 70 million peeps in the UK,maybe a third of that licence holders but globally there are 7 billion folks and I would guess at least 500 million of them have the wherewithal to drop a £,$,Yen or whatever to watch some UK telly when they want.

Plus,imagine the diversity in programme making that could engender.

 

[dowie]

BBC:WW has no influence on what is commissioned in the UK.
At best they can pitch an idea (like any production company) or part fund a show that the BBC is already looking to do as part of the package to get the rights to sell it overseas (BBC:WW has to bid for rights the same as any other distributor, but it can also like other distributors/production companies go to the BBC with an idea).

Basically the relationship is no different between the BBC and BBC:WW than it is between say BBC:WW and ITV, or ITV Studios and the BBC (ITV actually make some content for the BBC, and BBC:WW has been involved in productions and funding for stuff to be shown on ITV).

The only difference between BBC:WW and other distributors is that because it is owned by the BBC, BBC:WW's operational profit largely goes back to the BBC rather than just the money from the licensing of the content (so effectively the BBC gets about an extra 8-10%* compared to selling the content to another distributor under exactly the same conditions).


*Or whatever the distributors cut of any profits is (iirc in publishing the agent who arranges such deals normally gets about 10%).

Sounds good, so what would be the problem with having some content broadcast under a commercial arm within the UK if it is separated from the rest of the BBC? such as prime time shows they're using to compete against commercial broadcasters - that might as well be commercially funded on the BBC side too and soaps such as EastEnders, sports coverage etc...

I guess you don't *have* to make the whole of BBC1 commercial even to do this but could even just give prime time slots to the commercial side for example.

 

[stewski]

non sequitur some commercialisation has an effect, so greater commercialisation will have no more effect. I think the nuance of what Chomsky has suggested is that the exact adverts that run during a show have an effect on the editorial content of those show.

To suggest that some corners of the beeb are commercial so more of it should be commercialised without negative impact is simply disingenuous.

Unanswered!

 

[dowie]

non sequitur some commercialisation has an effect, so greater commercialisation will have no more effect. I think the nuance of what Chomsky has suggested is that the exact adverts that run during a show have an effect on the editorial content of those show.

To suggest that some corners of the beeb are commercial so more of it should be commercialised without negative impact is simply disingenuous.

I'm not sure why you think there necessarily has to be a negative impact, there are plenty of ways in which you could commercialize parts of it. It would seem the important part would be to keep the commercial side separate.

I mean suppose they kept everything as it is except BBC 1 gets moved into a commercial unit... BBC news remains separate and the BBC, not the commercial unit, runs it still - BBC 1 are required to show it at specific times and they're required to set aside certain time slots for documentaries they'll be forced to show and there are clauses whereby the BBC can dictate changes to programming in cases where say the Queen dies etc.. Other PSB aspects of BBC 1 move to BBC2.

you'd create a unit that could fund itself, has a remit for prime time shows, has no control over the content of its news channels or documentaries and you'd save the license payers a whole load of money as that single channel is a huge cost and a large portion of that cost is stuff that is commercially viable and designed to compete against commercial rivals.

 

[stewski]

I'm not sure why you think there necessarily has to be a negative impact, there are plenty of ways in which you could commercialize parts of it.

Not so much an answer as a "it's possible so we should"
You could nationalise ITV/Sky so what!

 

[dowie]

Not so much an answer as a "it's possible so we should"
You could nationalise ITV/Sky so what!

I've already previously stated in this thread why I think aspects of it should be commercialized my post there was answering your criticism about commercialization - that I didn't repeat what I've already posted about why I'd advocate that is neither here nor there, if you're going to deliberately misrepresent my position with throwaway replies like that then there is no point in even discussing this with you

 

[LzR]

Ah OK, thanks that kind of makes sense.

It seems you don't need a license to watch on demand stuff from Now TV
So if Now TV were to make their own live shows you'd not need a license to watch that either as it is only 'internet TV' and not rebroadcasting TV from other mediums such as satellite and terrestrial?

As long as they show it on Now TV as an on demand service it will be fine, if they were to licence that content out to say ITV a year later, who showed it live, you'd need a licence.

this brings me to BT Sport - they buy up the rights to show football matches that aren't necessarily broadcast by terrestrial or satellite stations... not clear on the need for a license there.

Yes they buy the rights so someone i.e. a company is producing that content, that company is selling the same content to different broadcasters around the world. The reason it's not on other stations is because they have exclusive rights to that content.

Again this is the type of thing that really grinds people, you need a TV licence to watch BT Sport, who do not air their programmes on the BBC, even if you watch it on your mobile, while you're sat on a bus...

Jay

 

[stewski]

I've already previously stated in this thread why I think aspects of it should be commercialized my post there was answering your criticism about commercialization - that I didn't repeat what I've already posted about why I'd advocate that is neither here nor there, if you're going to deliberately misrepresent my position with throwaway replies like that then there is no point in even discussing this with you

It's not a throwaway remark. Clearly we have a thriving commercial sector of TV. I have laid out my belief (and Chomsky's assertion) that commercial interests have an effect on editorial decisions and content.

So far you have said nothing to allay this fear, that the BBC would be little different to other service providers, if it's content was commercialised in the ways you have suggested.

You simply dodge the questions put to you. I'm happy to leave it that you are pro commercialisation and have little concern that it would have a negative impact. Whereas I believe such commercialisation would directly affect the way the beeb operates to the point of making it's output similar to the sector that already exists and fails (for the most part) to provide a BBC like pubic service and cultural representation.

 

[dowie]

"it's possible so we should" suggests that I'm advocating this for no reason, simply because 'we should' whereas I'd already laid out my reasons and in saying that you're simply ignoring them, that is a throwaway remark

yes you believe that commercial interests would have a negative effect, I don't think they necessarily would - these are simply opinions not facts. I have given an example where I believe they could be negated and highlighted the fact that the BBC already has commercial operations and manages to segregate them. If you think I've dodged a question then feel free to point out where. If you're proposing that there is a negative effect from the commercial side are you able to show where this negative effect exists within the BBC today with it's existing commercial operations?

 

[Strife212]

Comments like "they would collapse without people being forced to pay them, they should enter the market" are deluded.

They would just grow even more if they were private and didn't have loads of rules. They are publicly funded to have a public service broadcaster, not because they are unable to fund themselves otherwise.

 

[dowie]

As long as they show it on Now TV as an on demand service it will be fine, if they were to licence that content out to say ITV a year later, who showed it live, you'd need a licence.


Yes they buy the rights so someone i.e. a company is producing that content, that company is selling the same content to different broadcasters around the world. The reason it's not on other stations is because they have exclusive rights to that content.

Again this is the type of thing that really grinds people, you need a TV licence to watch BT Sport, who do not air their programmes on the BBC, even if you watch it on your mobile, while you're sat on a bus...

Jay

Well yeah that is what I mean, a company simply selling content isn't a licensed broadcaster necessarily so why would BT Sport content that isn't broadcast via say satellite or terrestrial but just via the internet require a license whereas say now TV could set up an internet only channel with presenters and a schedule and seemingly not require one...

 

[stewski]

"it's possible so we should" suggests that I'm advocating this for no reason, simply because 'we should' whereas I'd already laid out my reasons and in saying that you're simply ignoring them, that is a throwaway remark

What reasoning have you given for converting the BBC to resemble it's competition C4/Sky/ITV et al re commercialisation?

yes you believe that commercial interests would have a negative effect, I don't think they necessarily would - these are simply opinions not facts.

I based my thoughts of the effects of commercialisation on the work of linguistic professor Noam Chomsky, what's your opinion based on?

I have given an example where I believe they could be negated and highlighted the fact that the BBC already has commercial operations and manages to segregate them. If you think I've dodged a question then feel free to point out where. If you're proposing that there is a negative effect from the commercial side are you able to show where this negative effect exists within the BBC today with it's existing commercial operations?

As I said non sequitur. Sandboxed commercialisation for ww BBC versus commercialisation of domestic BBC have the same effect, it simply does not follow.

 

[Glaucus]

Actually from memory the time per case for TVL is tiny, if say a simple speeding case in court is a 3 on a scale of 1-10 for time taken, a TVL case will barely register at 1.

There used to be a yearly set of stats produced by the government about case loads in the various courts, giving each type of offence dealt with a number representing the average time taken vs the number of cases.
A magistrates court could do 100+ TVL cases in a morning or afternoon.
In the same time they might (if the CPS didn't mess up paperwork) may manage something like half a dozen other fairly simple cases, or a dozen very simple ones, but may only manage one more complex one.

I think there is/was a suggestion that the CPS waste more time with not being prepared for cases than the total time taken by the TVL cases (which are dealt with in specially scheduled sessions as they can be dealt with so fast, and the law is so simple in regards to them)..

This, although there's many cases they are done in bulk and take very little time. Despite being 10% of court cases, it only takes up 0.3% of court time.

The maximum penalty is £1000 and is non recordable so don't even get a criminal record.

The reason people go to prison is same as ignoring any court fine, Not due to TV license and yes its a tiny percentage from idiots who think they're sticking it to the man.

In 2013, 178,332 people in England and Wales were proceeded against under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. 153,369 were found guilty. However, only 32 of those went to prison that year.

Ads to mow TV and requiring a license, if you watch any of then live channels on now TV, you require a license, if you watch on demand stuff, you done.

On the odd occasion you watch something on demand, that is actually being broadcast on TV, say you watch con air on Netflix and it happens to also being shown on channel 4 at the same time, technically you need a license. But no one would ever be court or prosecuted.

The amount if money wasted on courts, enforcement and threatening letters, it should just come out off the big tax hole from central government. Although I would like to see slightly stricter rules. Less competing with other channels and even more original content,

 

[dowie]

What reasoning have you given for converting the BBC to resemble it's competition C4/Sky/ITV et al re commercialisation?

I've not advocated converting the BBC I've advocating commercially funding parts of it, it is mostly an ideological position as I don't personally believe that the parts which are fairly similar to and actively competing with commercial broadcasting warrant subsidy as they're viable to be self funded

I based my thoughts of the effects of commercialisation on the work of linguistic professor Noam Chomsky, what's your opinion based on?

my opinion is my own thanks

putting aside the whole 'appeal to authority' flaw there it is both lazy and dubious to cite some essay not aimed at this conversation in particular and simply claim it applies to the argument I'm putting forwards. You're not citing facts there but simply a third party opinion on a general topic.

As I said non sequitur. Sandboxed commercialisation for ww BBC versus commercialisation of domestic BBC have the same effect, it simply does not follow.

But you're not willing to argue why ref: the example I gave or able to highlight whether there are current issues with the commercial arm they've already got.

 

[thep02]

Ah yes, great point. I dont want to pay for BBC content so I should not watch anything on television ever as a result. ITS SO SIMPLE!

I dont feel like subscribing to The Guardian's website but I am still free to use other parts of the internet free of charge, why are the BBC allowed to monopolise an entire industry of which they themselves are only a relatively small part?

Now that the c of e is much less popular we need a place to occupy the arty toffs that pays them the kind of wage they think they deserve.

 

[kitkat2015]

They can get rid of countryfile, right load trash.

Watched & presented by by a load environmental luvvies who think recycling an egg box will save the plant.

Give your head a big shake....

 

[APM]

Chomsky is moot anyway,everyone hails the insight but there's never any application.

Who would interfere with a functioning economic model?

 

[stewski]

Chomsky is moot anyway,everyone hails the insight but there's never any application.

I'm interested in what you mean by this, are you suggesting the position he (Chomsky) adopts re commercial media is somehow moot, in what sense of the word?

Who would interfere with a functioning economic model?

Which model? License fee funded is a functioning model.