Privatise the BBC ......... Please

[j.m@talk]

Ok If you own "The capability of recieving TV signals" in the UK you are legally obliged to have a licence(a few exceptions........ Like the Blind :rolleyes: & if Schools etc can prove they just use DVD's etc they are excused) Licences cost nearly $200 a year & the money goes to The BBC (None Commercial TV) The Beeb then make progs for, we Licence holders to watch & then they sell the Progs on to anyone else who wants em ......... Well Fine.

Recently The Beeb have removed their DVB encryption system rendering it's programming free to air ....... So now ANYONE within the ASTRA sattelitte Footprint area can recieve BBC programs without charge. Just whizz your dish round To 28.2 ºE & your cooking.......

Where is the commercial sense there? "Bit like selling the lock off the safe door to save cash" Me thinks :rolleyes:

Commercial suicide & Freaking Annoying to the licence payers :mad:

If your in North africa its possible to recieve OK using a 3.5 Mtr dish....... However these are quite easily obtained & The African nation has very little will to enforce thire Planning laws :rolleyes:
I have witnessed Astra 2A (digital) Pictures in Tunisia
:rolleyes: So much for local TV

Sizes in cms of dish required to recieve signals

[fishybawb]

It is a fairly bizarre concept, making you pay for two terrestrial channels out of five (or four if you're lucky...) regardless of which ones you actually watch. Oh, and the colour licence is around £116, not £200. And the best part? Registered blind people get a REDUCTION, not a free license :rolleyes:

[j.m@talk]

Yes you do go to jail if you flout this law :eek:

So I suggest either the BBC reinstate the encryption or remove their DVB output immediately :rolleyes:

One Mighty Fed Up Licence Payer :D

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by fishybawb
It is a fairly bizarre concept, making you pay for two terrestrial channels out of five (or four if you're lucky...) regardless of which ones you actually watch. Oh, and the colour licence is around £116, not £200. And the best part? Registered blind people get a REDUCTION, not a free license :rolleyes:

Noo you pay for the "Facility to recieve TV signals"
$200 (Dollars) ;)
There are ways around the reduction...... Trust me ;) Ya can get it Waived :t

[mireland]

You guys have a screwy tv system over there...:eek:


http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/tv3.gif

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by mireland
You guys have a screwy tv system over there...:eek:


http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/tv3.gif

Its an extremely profitable Buisness...... I just can't for the life of me understand why they are going down this road :mad:

[urdvurk]

You British people don't know how lucky you are to have the BBC. If you could speak other languages (and if you could receive continental European channels) you could see what kind of commercial junk passes for television over here. Public broadcasting is better but is being reduced because of government cuts. I think almost half of what I watch is the BBC, and most of the rest is movies and reruns of comedy series (most of them British as well). And English detectives (Morse, Frost, etc.) of course.

Then again 116 pounds for a colour license (like you can still buy a B&W TV) is rather steep. Don't you have that new digital freeview thingie now? I mean, isn't that supposed to be free or something?

[herosrest]

The BBC if fine fer me.
l assumed the licence fee guaranteed independance.
That seems to be under attack from all quarters recently.

The media play a more than significant role in electing our governments.

There is much much more going on at the moment than meets the common eye.

Television should be banned from reporting Politics.
Commercial newspapers for that matter as well. :rolleyes:

[j.m@talk]

Thats My Point :rolleyes: If "The Licencees" are paying for these programs to be manufactured, & these clearly are saleable products........ WTF are the Beeb being so sloppy with their........ err....... "OUR" product?

I'm pleased you enjoy BBC programs, your quite correct they have an enviable reputation..... Built on a sound buisness stratergy. The BBC hasn't attained its status purely by luck..... A bit of good judgement kicked in too ...... :t

[urdvurk]

I'm pleased you enjoy BBC programs, your quite correct they have an enviable reputation..... Built on a sound buisness stratergy. The BBC hasn't attained its status purely by luck..... A bit of good judgement kicked in too ......
Assuming this is in reaction to my post: I don't think the BBC, enviable reputation and all, is built on a sound business strategy, but rather a very large amount of funding (you might, quite rightly, consider this a sound business strategy). The BBC makes very good programming but this is in part due to its large budget. Also, this budget, together with the fact that the BBC doesn't rely on the number of viewers it gets, more or less guarantees its independence.

So, you pay a lot for your public broadcasting, but you get something in return as well: a system that, though it costs a lot, more or less works and certainly works better than a lot of other systems.

[cwin]

We can get scottish BBC 1 and 2 now!:cool: :p

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by cwin
We can get scottish BBC 1 and 2 now!:cool: :p

Hoots, Haggis lessons 24/7 ;)

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by urdvurk
The BBC makes very good programming but this is in part due to its large budget. Also, this budget, together with the fact that the BBC doesn't rely on the number of viewers it gets, more or less guarantees its independence.

So, you pay a lot for your public broadcasting, but you get something in return as well: a system that, though it costs a lot, more or less works and certainly works better than a lot of other systems.

The whole point here is to point out its lack of realisation that its product is being syphoned off by all & sundry

[fishybawb]

Originally posted by j.m@talk21.com
The whole point here is to point out its lack of realisation that its product is being syphoned off by all & sundry

Yeah, but why would they care? They get up to £116 from every TV owner in the UK, plus £1000 from everyone they catch who doesn't have a licence. ITV1, Channel 4 and Five on the other hand fund their programmes from advertising fees. We're paying for two fifths of the terrestrial channels we receive. On the other hand, I really hate advertising :D :t

[j.m@talk]

Nothing wrong with stimulating the economy is there?

[Black Beard]

Thank God for the BBC, there is no other media corporation on this planet that comes anywhere near it in quality, independance, originality and expressive creativity.

In the past one of its greatest attributes has been its independence from governmental interference, unfortunately due to events of the recent past the present British government has found a way to interfere with disastrous results for the BBC and the world in general.

Anyone who followed the 'Hutton Enquiry' and its 'Investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly' (www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/index.htm) must have been, in all honesty surprised, shocked and then puzzled by its conclusions.

This is not a lone opinion, the majority of the British people, more than 75% believe the report to be a whitewash and just a scam to get Blair off the hook for taking us into a war dishonestly, it has backfired and is likely to be his downfall.

[aghastpumpkin]

It's all Andrew Gilligans fault, technically, but can just a couple of indecent remarks on Radio 4 have lead to suicide. I am thinking it is not these comments which prompted Kelly to retire from life, but the pressure he recieved from the government.
If it is proven Iraq holds no weapons of mass destruction, then I feel that both Blair and Bush should resign.
How can the government seriously think they can get away with lumping the blame on a couple of remarks by the beeb, when it is they themselves who are responsible?
This has become disastrous for the beeb, and it is a complete utter shame Dyke has been forced to resign. He was excellant, and will be sorely missed.
I really don't know how Blair thinks he's going to survive the next elections.

PS The Office is apparently being made for American TV, though I am afraid, that you yanks won't quite find it as funny as we did, you won't even have David Brent for a start. lol

[michaeln]

Just to clarify the position, if you own a tv (aparatus capable of receiving a tv signal (and that includes your pc tv card)), you must have a licence, even though you migh never use it to receive a tv programme. You might just have it connected to a VCR or a DVD Player. The mere ownership alone requires you to hold a lcence,

[j.m@talk]

Umm a point I've been trying to get across...... however wasted on these reprabates :p

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by aghastpumpkin
It's all Andrew Gilligans fault,

Noooooooooooooooooooooo

If that was the case some wise **** would be trying for manslaughter :rolleyes:

[gtaylor]

I won't argue about the merits of taking the encryption off, it's pointless.

I will stick up for the beeb though. If it wasn't for the beeb, imagine what kinda rubbish we would get eh? And if you think about it, we pay directly for the beeb, and don't get adverts. We pay for ITV through buying stuff in shops etc, as marketing budgets are added on to the cost of goods and services. With Sky, you pay for it twice, both in a subscription AND through the cost of goods and services. That is wrong in my opinion, but having said that, I'm getting sky fitted next tuesday, with the sky+ box 'cos I want to watch footie and repeats of Dr Who.

[gtaylor]

The main thing is, that because the beeb has high standards, other UK channels need to compete and that makes British TV the best in the world. Look at the states, they have 500 or so channels, 24 hours a day, and the best is what we get (simpsons, friends etc) which makes up a small proportion of our TV schedule.

Also consider that it takes not far off an hour to watch an episode of Friends in the states, whereas you get through one in 25 minutes here. Again, 24 lasts 1 hour exactly in the states per episode, 40 minutes here. That's all because of the beeb and its reputation for quality broadcasting I'm afraid.

Oh, and go Ricky Gervais! I hated him when he replaced Ali G on the 11 o'clock show, but the Office is great.

[j.m@talk]

Sky isn't the only company that does DVB ya know..........

There are ways & means of getting the footy wivout paying any subscription :p (Legal & nothing to do wiv Sky)

UK Tv the Best ......... Umm probably the dearest :mad:

[gtaylor]

Still the best though methinks.

[j.m@talk]

The BBC has failed to reach an agreement with Sky for placement of its regional channel variants on digital satellite, according to Broadcast.

Earlier this month the corporation announced it would be ditching Sky's conditional access system in a bid to save £85 million over five years. The system restricts viewing of channels only to the UK -- vital when broadcasters hold the rights to transmit shows in the UK alone -- and automatically gives the viewer their correct regional variant for channels which have them.

The BBC said it would be able to survive without the need to use the access system by switching all of its channels to the Astra 2D satellite, which has a reception aimed tightly at the UK.
In order for viewers to receive their correct regional versions of BBC One and BBC Two, however, the corporation said it would still require use of part of the system, for which it offered Sky "a fair price."

Sky retaliated by pointing out that the BBC could lose the first two slots in its EPG -- channels 101 and 102 for BBC One and Two respectively -- since the Irish broadcaster RTÉ occupies the slots in the Republic. It also announced its intent to double the annual amount it charges broadcasters for listing channels in the EPG.

There has also been some outrage from viewers. Whilst the Astra 2D satellite is aimed principally at the UK, signals can still be picked up in Ireland, France, Iceland and parts of Northern Spain. Viewers in those countries with dishes large enough would be able to see the channels for free, without having to pay the licence fee like UK residents have to.

The BBC stuck to its guns saying it would still go ahead with the plan, and met with Sky at the end of last week to negotiate for use of the regional aspect of the system.

Broadcast reports that the meeting ended without agreement, deepening the rift between the two parties over the issue.

Sky sources told the magazine that the BBC arrived at the meeting without any technical solution to regional service selection, so in essence would still be using the conditional access system. One added that it couldn't remain on slots 101 and 102 in the EPG without using the system because it would cause a conflict in Ireland, where RTÉ currently resides.

The BBC, meanwhile, said it had gone to the meeting with "a full team of technicians" to discuss the specifics of the problems, but had only been given an hour to explain by Sky, who subsequently told them to "write it down and send it in a letter."


http://www.astra2d.co.uk/worldfoot.jpg

Astra 2D satellite, which has a reception aimed tightly at the UK. :rolleyes:

[richard_cocks]

privatize the BBC?!?!? it provides the only watchable TV channels in the world, and whilst channel 4 makes far far far superior programs (although that's gone down hill in recent years) not having adverts is a MASSIVE reason for the BBC. 20 minute programs are actually 20 minutes, not 30 minutes once you've had 10 minutes of adverts.

[richard_cocks]

p.s. black beard - that's why 75% of the population aren't law lords :rolleyes:

[urdvurk]

p.s. black beard - that's why 75% of the population aren't law lords
Why? Because they would not have let Blair off the hook?
You seem to have a lot of faith in the workings of government. :)

[the_mac]

Originally posted by richard_cocks
privatize the BBC?!?!? it provides the only watchable TV channels in the world

:)
hahaha

You brits are hilarious, right mum?

[tasty danish]

your jumblies are royht and proper poppet!

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by richard_cocks
it provides the only watchable TV channels in the world

What utter nonsense :rolleyes:

Its a case of pay wether you watch it or not, "Baader Meinhof" were'nt that unreasonable :p

[richard_cocks]

Actually since I don't have a TV, I don't pay and don't watch, but the occasion when I do watch TV, it's the adverts on other channels that make me switch off the fastest.

and I watch about 3 programs when I do have access to a TV, mainly later with jools, which is on BBC2 :)

whilst it may not have the best made programs, not having adverts is bloody nice.

[richard_cocks]

Originally posted by urdvurk
Why? Because they would not have let Blair off the hook?
You seem to have a lot of faith in the workings of government. :)

No, I have faith in law lords to make decisions based on the evidence before them. Since they are trained to do such things, and actually have access to all the evidence, whereas the public aren't trained in such matters and don't have all the evidence. This has nothing to do with the trusting the government.

[j.m@talk]

the public aren't trained in such matters and don't have all the evidence

How much training does weighing up evedence require?

I'm one of the "I don't know nothing about art but I know what I like brigade"

Err "If its not to my liking I'll say so" :p