BBC license fee proposals...

[T100]

Hi just to point out the BBC can not advertise but they do under the banner of BBC world where they can make massive profits on selling shows , I.E dr who .
So not being transparent , they are ****ers

Broadcast TV has been dying for 20 years, cinema has been dying for around 50 years.

Broadcast TV is probably going to be around as a major player for quite a long time (multiple decades), as it's cheap to run per viewer, easy to implement and maintain (one transmitter per X tens of thousands or millions of users), and scales up extremely well with no additional cost per user (for the output) from 1 to 10,000,000 if they're within range of the transmitter.

Internet services will likely still be struggling to provide enough bandwidth for all properties covered by Broadcast TV in 10-20 years for one channel at a time, let alone multiple channels at once (especially if the definition of the content increases).

BBC bandwidth is widely known as crap
As to cinema if they stopped making films what would people see . home improvements shows from the BBC ? They go and make a cup of tea when this crap comes on .The BBC went down hill many years ago. Just look at day time .can't think it's changed much from when I was last their ?

Too bad that they are nothing more than Government stooges, otherwise that might be relevant.

Hopefully the tories dismantle it.

I agree

Each to his own. Personally I reckon the BBC is the best value product in Britain today. Sky has to be the very worst value product by far.

Read my post my there is much more to come
Spill the beans

don't pay the license, haven't for the last two years, I don't have time to watch TV working full time and studying 2-3 hours a day, can't say I've missed it. So long BBC!

As an aside I don't understand how people have so many problems with them, the misses simply fills in a form once a year, never had anything I'd call hassle. Sure we shouldn't have to waste time filling in the form but it's hardily a hardship.

Don't pay it

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%).

This is not true look at internet figures

This is not true look at internet figures

Also an accountant with a basic calculator could tell you they are lying where is the transparency ? And don't quote a BBC code that means nothing , tell me how much money BBCWW earns from sales around the world and I can tell you if it's correct .

 

[Werewolf]

Why are you quoting your own posts?

As to internet figures, which ones?

The BBC accounts and spending figures are published and scrutinised intently by the rest of the media (often hoping for a scandal), and the government.

Hi everyone I am new here , has anyone worked for the BBC here ?

I would like to awnswer some of your valued questions

In some departments there is an open bullying system where by if you don't do what they want then your fired .

Really?
Most of what I've heard suggests the BBC is pretty tough on bullying, and had some of the best reporting systems in place for it of any media organisation.

It was a far known fact that the boss of the BBC has over 100 people doing his job for him , each on over £100'000 per year. ( reported by the union bectu )

You mean like any "boss" of a company or organisation will have subordinates who might be well paid as head of departments or specialist sub groups?
IIRC the entire top level of BBC management have a wage bill under that of just the head of ITV

Value for money ? The BBC moved their entire sports coverage department to Manchester only to move them back to London for the Olympics
. (What foresight )

We all had a joke at that one ,on your licence payers fee not.

IIRC the move was planned before London won the Olympics, in part because they needed to update studio space and were consolidating departments that were spread out into larger more cost effective units.
I think they may have moved some of the work up so that the London Studios were back in operation with the upgrades in time for it., whatever they did they were going to have to move a lot of staff out of London for the duration of the works, and I suspect it made financial sense to move them to the newly opened studios in Manchester whilst the work was being done.

Or how about moving casualty from Bristal to Wales which cost over £100'000000,
This move was as I am told due to the labour government at the time trying to revamp Cardiff .

I'm sure the cost was just for casualty, no other shows are made there, also it's remembering that Casualty is like many long running shows cheap to make in the long term, however every now and then you need to spend a lot on it to keep facilities up to date (or build a new set).
Again IIRC it was in part done because studios were in need of refurbishment and updates (Casualty for example had I think be based in the same studio for something like 10 years, and when they're filming there for 6+ months of the year it's hard to update it), I suspect leases running out and it being cheaper to work there may also have played a part as well as any political pressure

I suspect given you've said 100 million, that it's the cost of an entire studio and production complex, something that will typically last decades..

Or let's all go to a very expensive hotel spa and discus next years scrips

Any proof?
IIRC the BBC expenses (which are scrutinised by the media, the government and the HMRC) are typically known to be tight and usually well under the industry norm, and within the range the HMRC normally allow.

As to band width the BBC has a terrible band width .

I can't speak to that compared to other broadcasters (I don't tend to look at the bandwidth figure, but the picture), but the BBC do tend to use better encoding technology than many*, which means that they can often do a lot more with their bandwidth.
It's one of the things their tech department is constantly working on.
Bandwidth alone tends to mean almost nothing, especially with things like MPEG2, I used to have a DVD player that displayed the bitrate as you watched the discs (if you selected the option on the remote), there were early DVD's that maxed out the bitrate that looked terrible compared to later ones that had similar content and a much lower bitrate.
IIRC the BBC use a variable rate encoding system that looks at all of it's output on any given digital broadcast platform (terrestrial, cable, satellite) and optimises the bitrate for the channels on the fly, so if BBC 1 is showing something with a lot of detail and action and BBC2 is showing Snooker (which is less complex a picture) BBC1 might get a bigger share of the total bitrate within limits.

It had been reported in the past that if the BBC was privatised it could generate enough for money in advertising just from Radio ?

Where? and how credible was the report?
There isn't enough advertising revenue across all areas in the UK for the BBC to get anything like it's current funding from advertising without killing off pretty much all the smaller broadcasters and severely hurting even ITV and Sky (total advertising spend in the UK is around 19billion).
I don't think there would even be enough in the Radio advertising budget in the UK to really pay for just Radio 4 without it killing off many of the commercial stations (Radio 4 alone costs around 100 million), and the BBC spends something like 500 million on it's radio services in total, whilst the total advertising spend on radio is only around 600 million for all the other broadcasters.


*Within the limits of the broadcasting specifications and format for the platform.

 

[Tefal]

One thing is i support the license fee for tv base don the bbcs R&D of TV equipment.

But for online services the bbc set up is not shared with others, and is arguably one of the worst in terms of set uo.


So i dont feel it right they get funding when private corps have done far more development

 

[Pottsey]

As an aside I don't understand how people have so many problems with them, the misses simply fills in a form once a year, never had anything I'd call hassle. Sure we shouldn't have to waste time filling in the form but it's hardily a hardship.

Filling out the form or contacting them on the website sometimes doesn't work. Sometimes it works but only for a few years. Its like rolling a dice you get even numbers and ok but roll and odd number and they wont stop hassling you for what appears to be no reason.

 

[krisboats]

Had a license guy tirn up at the house the other day and asked me if i had any equipment that was capable of watching a live broadcast or iplayer, like a computer, phone or games console. I said yes and he proceeded to grill me about how i needed a license and wanted me to sign a form saying i did. Scumbags.

I dont object to paying for the use of iplayer. I do however object to being charged a full tv license fee when i dont watch live broadcasts. If there was an iplayer license at say £30 for the year then i would consider it. I'll simply not bother with iplayer now though.

 

[T100]

Why are you quoting your own posts?

As to internet figures, which ones?

The BBC accounts and spending figures are published and scrutinised intently by the rest of the media (often hoping for a scandal), and the government.



Really?
Most of what I've heard suggests the BBC is pretty tough on bullying, and had some of the best reporting systems in place for it of any media organisation.


You mean like any "boss" of a company or organisation will have subordinates who might be well paid as head of departments or specialist sub groups?
IIRC the entire top level of BBC management have a wage bill under that of just the head of ITV


IIRC the move was planned before London won the Olympics, in part because they needed to update studio space and were consolidating departments that were spread out into larger more cost effective units.
I think they may have moved some of the work up so that the London Studios were back in operation with the upgrades in time for it., whatever they did they were going to have to move a lot of staff out of London for the duration of the works, and I suspect it made financial sense to move them to the newly opened studios in Manchester whilst the work was being done.


I'm sure the cost was just for casualty, no other shows are made there, also it's remembering that Casualty is like many long running shows cheap to make in the long term, however every now and then you need to spend a lot on it to keep facilities up to date (or build a new set).
Again IIRC it was in part done because studios were in need of refurbishment and updates (Casualty for example had I think be based in the same studio for something like 10 years, and when they're filming there for 6+ months of the year it's hard to update it), I suspect leases running out and it being cheaper to work there may also have played a part as well as any political pressure

I suspect given you've said 100 million, that it's the cost of an entire studio and production complex, something that will typically last decades..


Any proof?
IIRC the BBC expenses (which are scrutinised by the media, the government and the HMRC) are typically known to be tight and usually well under the industry norm, and within the range the HMRC normally allow.


I can't speak to that compared to other broadcasters (I don't tend to look at the bandwidth figure, but the picture), but the BBC do tend to use better encoding technology than many*, which means that they can often do a lot more with their bandwidth.
It's one of the things their tech department is constantly working on.
Bandwidth alone tends to mean almost nothing, especially with things like MPEG2, I used to have a DVD player that displayed the bitrate as you watched the discs (if you selected the option on the remote), there were early DVD's that maxed out the bitrate that looked terrible compared to later ones that had similar content and a much lower bitrate.
IIRC the BBC use a variable rate encoding system that looks at all of it's output on any given digital broadcast platform (terrestrial, cable, satellite) and optimises the bitrate for the channels on the fly, so if BBC 1 is showing something with a lot of detail and action and BBC2 is showing Snooker (which is less complex a picture) BBC1 might get a bigger share of the total bitrate within limits.


Where? and how credible was the report?
There isn't enough advertising revenue across all areas in the UK for the BBC to get anything like it's current funding from advertising without killing off pretty much all the smaller broadcasters and severely hurting even ITV and Sky (total advertising spend in the UK is around 19billion).
I don't think there would even be enough in the Radio advertising budget in the UK to really pay for just Radio 4 without it killing off many of the commercial stations (Radio 4 alone costs around 100 million), and the BBC spends something like 500 million on it's radio services in total, whilst the total advertising spend on radio is only around 600 million for all the other broadcasters.


*Within the limits of the broadcasting specifications and format for the platform.

O.k I think that you out thought yourself BBC 4 billion the rest 15 billion the BBC can go to hell . Why pay twice ? Why should we have the pay the BBC it shows crap t.v anyway

 

[sniperone]

Do we even have any emergency warning system any more? when I was young there were still ww2 sirens maintained around this area up until I think 1990 or 1991 or something.

We had sirens tested randomly throughout the 1980's and after watching the day after tomorrow they use to scare the hell out of me as I use to think we were about to get nuked

 

[T100]

Hey people you have BBC reps here who pretend to know what they are talking about ?
Don't pay the licence their is nothing they can do if your smart,

 

[asim18]

Hi everyone I am new here , has anyone worked for the BBC here ?

I would like to awnswer some of your valued questions

In some departments there is an open bullying system where by if you don't do what they want then your fired .

I once saw a poster the BBC created which instructed black people to "Kill white police officers". Is this one of the things you're talking about when you say people get fired for not doing what they want?

Surely it's bad to create posters like this and I'm sure the designer would have refused to make it. There's some seriously sick stuff going on in the world of media.

 

[T100]

Why do you defend them ?
Look if you want to buy an I phone ,, you can ,if you want to buy a Samsung you can , but if you buy a tv and want to watch streem TV you can't ?

I once saw a poster the BBC created which instructed black people to "Kill white police officers". Is this one of the things you're talking about when you say people get fired for not doing what they want?

Surely it's bad to create posters like this and I'm sure the designer would have refused to make it. There's some seriously sick stuff going on in the world of media.

Yeh I've seen them fire a black actress for being pregnant , how upsetting can you get?

 

[Malevolence]

Don't pay the licence their is nothing they can do if your smart,

So I'm guessing that you pay it then?

 

[T100]

I once saw a poster the BBC created which instructed black people to "Kill white police officers". Is this one of the things you're talking about when you say people get fired for not doing what they want?

Surely it's bad to create posters like this and I'm sure the designer would have refused to make it. There's some seriously sick stuff going on in the world of media.

You got it all wrong ? I want you and them to respect everyone , there is no such thing as a race issue , only the best person for the job

 

[Werewolf]

Hey people you have BBC reps here who pretend to know what they are talking about ?
Don't pay the licence their is nothing they can do if your smart,

MAy I ask why you're quoting entire posts without putting anything yourself in, not even a smiley?

Also who are the BBC reps on here, I would be very interested to know.

 

[Rroff]

Hmm I wonder how this one would be covered - friend of mine has no TV license at home currently since moving but their daughter is sometimes given homework assignments at school that involves downloading something from iplayer to their tablet/laptop while at school and then later use it as part of the homework assignment usually done either at the library (not sure if that is school or public) or at home.

 

[T100]

MAy I ask why you're quoting entire posts without putting anything yourself in, not even a smiley?

Also who are the BBC reps on here, I would be very interested to know.

O.k the reps are easy anyone with knolage of the Beeb .
Look I can tell you who has got the smelliest dick in the premiership .
But what the hell people live lives.

The Beeb overspend every time . Look at broadcasting house way over budget .

You do not respond when I said women get fired for being pregnant

A man got half blinded by lasers on a set one day , only to get told he would never work again if he claimed by the head of health an safety .
So how far is that ?

Why are you quoting your own posts?

As to internet figures, which ones?

The BBC accounts and spending figures are published and scrutinised intently by the rest of the media (often hoping for a scandal), and the government.



Really?
Most of what I've heard suggests the BBC is pretty tough on bullying, and had some of the best reporting systems in place for it of any media organisation.


You mean like any "boss" of a company or organisation will have subordinates who might be well paid as head of departments or specialist sub groups?
IIRC the entire top level of BBC management have a wage bill under that of just the head of ITV


IIRC the move was planned before London won the Olympics, in part because they needed to update studio space and were consolidating departments that were spread out into larger more cost effective units.
I think they may have moved some of the work up so that the London Studios were back in operation with the upgrades in time for it., whatever they did they were going to have to move a lot of staff out of London for the duration of the works, and I suspect it made financial sense to move them to the newly opened studios in Manchester whilst the work was being done.


I'm sure the cost was just for casualty, no other shows are made there, also it's remembering that Casualty is like many long running shows cheap to make in the long term, however every now and then you need to spend a lot on it to keep facilities up to date (or build a new set).
Again IIRC it was in part done because studios were in need of refurbishment and updates (Casualty for example had I think be based in the same studio for something like 10 years, and when they're filming there for 6+ months of the year it's hard to update it), I suspect leases running out and it being cheaper to work there may also have played a part as well as any political pressure

I suspect given you've said 100 million, that it's the cost of an entire studio and production complex, something that will typically last decades..


Any proof?
IIRC the BBC expenses (which are scrutinised by the media, the government and the HMRC) are typically known to be tight and usually well under the industry norm, and within the range the HMRC normally allow.


I can't speak to that compared to other broadcasters (I don't tend to look at the bandwidth figure, but the picture), but the BBC do tend to use better encoding technology than many*, which means that they can often do a lot more with their bandwidth.
It's one of the things their tech department is constantly working on.
Bandwidth alone tends to mean almost nothing, especially with things like MPEG2, I used to have a DVD player that displayed the bitrate as you watched the discs (if you selected the option on the remote), there were early DVD's that maxed out the bitrate that looked terrible compared to later ones that had similar content and a much lower bitrate.
IIRC the BBC use a variable rate encoding system that looks at all of it's output on any given digital broadcast platform (terrestrial, cable, satellite) and optimises the bitrate for the channels on the fly, so if BBC 1 is showing something with a lot of detail and action and BBC2 is showing Snooker (which is less complex a picture) BBC1 might get a bigger share of the total bitrate within limits.


Where? and how credible was the report?
There isn't enough advertising revenue across all areas in the UK for the BBC to get anything like it's current funding from advertising without killing off pretty much all the smaller broadcasters and severely hurting even ITV and Sky (total advertising spend in the UK is around 19billion).
I don't think there would even be enough in the Radio advertising budget in the UK to really pay for just Radio 4 without it killing off many of the commercial stations (Radio 4 alone costs around 100 million), and the BBC spends something like 500 million on it's radio services in total, whilst the total advertising spend on radio is only around 600 million for all the other broadcasters.


*Within the limits of the broadcasting specifications and format for the platform.

You are BBC only they would believe their own propaganda spy ....

So I'm guessing that you pay it then?

Look their are some things I can't tell you for contractual reasons , but if you knew what I did about their internal workings you would not pay the licence .
The overspend is off the scale ? Cover ups corruption ? Sleeping with actresses to get a job , come on it goes on .

I challenge you to tell them .
.
Come on tell them how much the overspend was on broadcast house or how little they sold t.v.c for

The olympics happen every four years why did they move their sports department to Manchester just to move them back again in the same year .
How much money .

And I have not paid the licence for ten years now

 

[Kenai]

Look their are some things I can't tell you for contractual reasons ,

I wouldn't worry, I don't think many people believe the waffle you've come out with so far, so it's no loss.

 

[T100]

Only people with knolage of the B's anti bullying policy work for the Beeb the speed you came back with your response made me think you are the spy,

So come on then why can't people choose who they want to pay what T.V they watch
Or are you going to avoid that question as well.

Remember you have to tell them what the over spend was for broadcast house ? I have the true numbers from professor Bob at the Beeb ?

I wouldn't worry, I don't think many people believe the waffle you've come out with so far, so it's no loss.

So you still won't tell them then . How much was the overspend on broadcast house
.????

I work for the BBC and you then know nothing ? I have the true info , you don't .
I know what they do you don't ,
You talk about things you do not know about . You cannot tell me or anyone what really happens here .
You are a nothing ,, you have been found wanting ?

 

[Kol]

I have plenty of friends who work for the BBC and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but it's not really making any sense.

 

[T100]

I have plenty of friends who work for the BBC and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but it's not really making any sense.

Yeh I have plenty of black friends too ?
They will tell you similar stories .

Problem is no wants to admit it

May be read the past
All my posts don't seem to appear ?

 

[stopper]

I'm having a hard time following the last few posts of yours, t100
You are starting to sound a little silly.