BBC to sell web ads from new US office

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:06

dirtydog said:
The latter does not mean the former. The licence fee is never going down.

What are you talking about? The BBC license fee has goen DOWN relative to inflation. Yes thats a DOWN.

dirtydog · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:06

Chrisp7 said:
What are you talking about? The BBC license fee has goen DOWN relative to inflation. Yes thats a DOWN.

You said 'the licence fee will go down'. No, it won't. Ever

VIRII · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:08

Nexus said:
The only problem I have with the BBC is that they spend the lisence fee on six figure salries for the likes of Parkinson and Jonathan Ross. I think Ross was on 6 million last year. I'd rather they spent that money on something else and let ITV or Channel 4 pay that kind of money instead.

I do kind of agree however if they did then the argument would be that the BBC doesn't get enough viewers and hence supplies only an elitist fringe market and should be scrapped.

VIRII · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:08

dirtydog said:
You said 'the licence fee will go down'. No, it won't. Ever

It might.

dirtydog · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:10

VIRII said:
It might.

Well okay, it might

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:18

dirtydog said:
You said 'the licence fee will go down'. No, it won't. Ever

It is, do you know anything about economics or are intentionally acting ignorant.

dirtydog · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:21

Chrisp7 said:
It is, do you know anything about economics or are intentionally acting ignorant.

You are saying that it is going to go down in real terms, which while it might be true, surely doesn't constitute it going down. To most people, if something which costs £140 goes down, it doesn't cost £145 the next year. (Random figures for the purposes of illustration only.)

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:25

dirtydog said:
You are saying that it is going to go down in real terms, which while it might be true, surely doesn't constitute it going down. To most people, if something which costs £140 goes down, it doesn't cost £145 the next year. (Random figures for the purposes of illustration only.)

In real terms it is going down (for the 3rd time

) therefore it is going down. I dont care what the economically ignorant majority of our country think!

So you admit you are wrong then

Werewolf · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:26

Nexus said:
The only problem I have with the BBC is that they spend the lisence fee on six figure salries for the likes of Parkinson and Jonathan Ross. I think Ross was on 6 million last year. I'd rather they spent that money on something else and let ITV or Channel 4 pay that kind of money instead.

And if the BBC doesn't have the well known presenters they get complaints and lose viewers to the other channel...

The likes of Ross, etc could generally make as much, if not more from another channel (the BBC often has a clause to stop them advertising something related to what they are doing on TV - no Clarkson advertising the new Ford, unlike C4/ITV).

If the likes of Ross and Clarkson didn't pull in enough viewers to be worthwhile the BBC wouldn't renew their contracts (bare in mind that Ross's show is probably fairly cheap apart from his wage, and pulls in a lot of viewers for example).

dirtydog · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:28

Chrisp7 said:
In real terms it is going down (for the 3rd time) therefore it is going down. I dont care what the economically ignorant majority of our country think!

So you admit you are wrong then

Do you have a source because I thought it was still going up by 3% for the next two years. You mean after that it will go up by a lesser amount? Which inflation figure are you going by, CPI or RPI?

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:37

dirtydog said:
Do you have a source because I thought it was still going up by 3% for the next two years. You mean after that it will go up by a lesser amount? Which inflation figure are you going by, CPI or RPI?

The BBC's six-year licence fee deal will hand the corporation a 3% annual rise for the two years from April 2007, a 2% rise for the following three years, and an increase of between 0% and 2% in the final year of the deal, 2012-2013.

Going by CPI, its down down, by RPI going down rather a lot!

dirtydog · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:39

But how do you know what the inflation figure will be in two years or more's time? Unless you know that, you can't tell me now that the licence fee will go down in future, in real terms

Bobbler · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:41

I have no doubt that the BBC are as wasteful with the money as any other goverment funded scheme. See projects like NPfIT as one example...£2 billion spent on effectively sweet FA so far other than many, many project managers.

I personally fail to see the attraction in watching telly on a PC anywhere I can get net access. Whats the big deal with that? So I have to pay some coffee shop somewhere to access their limited bandwidth to watch Eastenders or some such? Really, how many people watch their telly at work or when out down the pub with their laptops in hand.

They pumped oodles of cash into setting up DAB, only to kill off one of its main draws (bitrate) within a few months of getting the service widely available.

HD I am yet to find anyone outside of geeky forums who actually cares. Seriously, does gran care about a 1080p Ian Beal on her 20 year old telly? IMO its overhyped.

IMO they should literally scrap the fee and make the entire BBC program list PPV so that people can watch what they want to pay for on demand or a selection of programs that they like. There is but two or three programs I can recall watching on any BBC channel in the last couple of years - Top Gear and the missus watches Eastenders. Oh and add Radio 1. So thats a grand total of two channels and one radio feed that I would be happy to pay for, or even better one radio channel and two program season tickets.
I am fed up of being forced to pay for crappy daytime TV that no one in our household is around to watch, or some BBC Asian radio station that I will never listen too.
I dont pay for Sports on Sky, so why do I have to pay for sport on BBC?

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:52

dirtydog said:
But how do you know what the inflation figure will be in two years or more's time? Unless you know that, you can't tell me now that the licence fee will go down in future, in real terms

Its highly unlikely that Inflation will go below 2%.

"When Mark Thompson appeared before our committee we were all concerned that the BBC has to fund the cost of switchover," says Adrian Sanders MP, a Liberal Democrat member of Media Select Committee. "The BBC is £2bn short and over a quarter of that is the £600m the Government has ring-fenced for switchover. This Government is using a regressive tax - the licence fee - to fund a policy that should be paid for by the Treasury out of progressive taxation."

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:54

Bobbler said:
I personally fail to see the attraction in watching telly on a PC anywhere I can get net access. Whats the big deal with that? So I have to pay some coffee shop somewhere to access their limited bandwidth to watch Eastenders or some such? Really, how many people watch their telly at work or when out down the pub with their laptops in hand.

HD I am yet to find anyone outside of geeky forums who actually cares. Seriously, does gran care about a 1080p Ian Beal on her 20 year old telly? IMO its overhyped.

IMO they should literally scrap the fee and make the entire BBC program list PPV so that people can watch what they want to pay for on demand or a selection of programs that they like. There is but two or three programs I can recall watching on any BBC channel in the last couple of years - Top Gear and the missus watches Eastenders. Oh and add Radio 1. So thats a grand total of two channels and one radio feed that I would be happy to pay for, or even better one radio channel and two program season tickets.
I am fed up of being forced to pay for crappy daytime TV that no one in our household is around to watch, or some BBC Asian radio station that I will never listen too.
I dont pay for Sports on Sky, so why do I have to pay for sport on BB

If you want to be left behind other countries and not have HD and not have the option to download content then I'll just put that down to your shortsightedness.

And in addition, if you want TV just for the lowest common denominator, without arts decent docunetaries, fantasic news output which are world class then we will do as you say. Just think about it, its good for the UK, its good for people to have access to these things, its good to eductae the oublic and its good for the UK on a world stage.

Bobbler · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:01

Chrisp7 said:
If you want to be left behind other countries and not have HD and not have the option to download content then I'll just put that down to your shortsightedness.

Whys that then? Downloaded content that I can watch on a computer defeats the whole object of having a telly IMO. Why on earth would I want to watch TV on a 12" laptop screen when I can watch it on a 36" telly?
On demand service via a set top box is a far more desirable prospect than trying to put a PC on a telly.
What really is the big draw of HD then? Other than the manufacturers and content providers rubbing their hands with glee as we rush to buy all new hardware over again to watch the same old movies already released but with more features than the DVD counterpart? Maybe I am missing something but its hardly the change that VHS was to DVD which didnt require me to buy a new telly to watch it.

Glaucus · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:02

Chrisp7 said:
It is, do you know anything about economics or are intentionally acting ignorant.

If everyones pay went up with inflation, you would be right. But as they dont. You are far from right.

Bobbler · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:08

Chrisp7 said:
And in addition, if you want TV just for the lowest common denominator, without arts decent docunetaries, fantasic news output which are world class then we will do as you say. Just think about it, its good for the UK, its good for people to have access to these things, its good to eductae the oublic and its good for the UK on a world stage.

Indeed, but I am not saying that they shouldnt produce these (in your view) decent documentaries and news. I am saying that you should not have to pay for something you dont use, which is something the current license payment structure doesnt allow you to do.
Would it be right then that the car tax should be put back to a single structure scheme rather than the banding based on CO2 emissions? How about if you're a cyclist you pay the same cost as a car to use the roads? Or pay a set charge for a meal at a restraunt to cover the cost of a bottle of Bollinger even though you have no intention of drinking it?
Thats the thing that I am getting at, that you dont use, you dont pay. At the moment you dont have any choice in the matter.

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:10

Bobbler said:
Whys that then? Downloaded content that I can watch on a computer defeats the whole object of having a telly IMO. Why on earth would I want to watch TV on a 12" laptop screen when I can watch it on a 36" telly?
On demand service via a set top box is a far more desirable prospect than trying to put a PC on a telly.
What really is the big draw of HD then? Other than the manufacturers and content providers rubbing their hands with glee as we rush to buy all new hardware over again to watch the same old movies already released but with more features than the DVD counterpart? Maybe I am missing something but its hardly the change that VHS was to DVD which didnt require me to buy a new telly to watch it.

Just because it doesnt comply with your needs doesnt mean that they arent demanded by others.

If you want an on demand service for your TV you will either need, a highspeed cable/DSL connection to your TV (which the BBC doesnt have anything to do with). Hence on demand internet - incidentally if you hooked up your TV with a computer you could watch downloadable content on your 36" TV.

HD is the future, HD is better picture, HD is where the developed world is going, if you want to be left behind, then lets not develop/move on. ANd yes its as much of a development as VHS-DVD. And you needed to buy a new DVD player to watch DVD's didnt you!?

Also think about Japan they are already discussing VHD, with even better vid quality, we are already waay behind.

Christo · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:12

Bobbler said:
Indeed, but I am not saying that they shouldnt produce these (in your view) decent documentaries and news. I am saying that you should not have to pay for something you dont use, which is something the current license payment structure doesnt allow you to do.
Would it be right then that the car tax should be put back to a single structure scheme rather than the banding based on CO2 emissions? How about if you're a cyclist you pay the same cost as a car to use the roads? Or pay a set charge for a meal at a restraunt to cover the cost of a bottle of Bollinger even though you have no intention of drinking it?
Thats the thing that I am getting at, that you dont use, you dont pay. At the moment you dont have any choice in the matter.

I'm afraid to say, without this form of funding the BBC wouldnt have such high quality output. The reason for it is for the greater good. Its good for the public to have arts funding, hence the 'tax' for everyone.