"The BBC's activities and ambitions are chilling"

[Bob The Skutter]

Murdoch just wants some licence money. It's not rocket surgery.

Not so much that, as he wants rid of the licence fee altogether. He doesn't want the BBC as a competitor, I think they even told OFCOM they didn't want any money from a top sliced licence fee.

 

[_r_]

I don't know why he says only Sky and BBC are relavent because Sky produce next to nothing in original programming, ITV still has around billion pound budget and produces a lot of highly rated shows. Channel 4 still produce a lot of good shows, but they became very bogged down in reality, property and cooking shows over the last few years, but they say they are investing more in drama over the next few years.

I wasn't speaking in the context of original programming, though I mentioned cable and satellite, not just Sky, though Sky alone, actually does produce original programming, but unlike ITV and Channel 4, retain a future capacity to produce original programming: drama, reality, comedy or otherwise, from an ever-increasing wealth from an ever expanding suscription base. Not to mention, those who choose Virgin, BT or other companies that represent the "future" of British Television.

ITV and Channel 4 don't- They, unlike, Satellite companies *like" Sky, can't afford to pay for necessary things like online, and on-demand television. Those who watch Channel 4 lately, have been at first-hand at self-affacing budget cuts, like News services and the Big Brother franchise (Despite it's fatigue, was the highest-rated show on Channel 4)

To put it in a simpler test: To the British users on this forum, when was the last time any of you watched ITV? Compare that to the times, you watched the BBC or even a niche channel on Freeview.

My point is, we'd rather have the choice brought to us by Cable, or consistent reliable brand of the BBC (Which doesn't identify as a terrestrial channel, but a service that not only exists on satellite, as many choices: BBC1 to 4, but as a major internet presence as well.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Wtf are you talking about? Sky are the only big satellite or cable company out there. Virgin Media are after selling all their channels they want to get out of production altogether and just become a service provider. And between Sky and VMTV there is very little original content produced. They focus on acquisitions to fill their schedules.

Sky has Ross Kemp shows, and a talk show, and a drama here and there.

Virgin's video on demand may be one of the best VoD services out there, but I think it's hard to find a better service online than 4oD.

Big Brother was cut because it's ratings were getting low, it may have been one of their higher rated shows but for the cost 2m views is pretty rubbish, and they do have better rated shows.

ITV is still the most popular commercial channel out there, and not only has a large back catalogue of stuff to sell it's also doing very well selling formats.

My point is they may be going through a bad time, but I don't see them going anywhere any time soon.

As for BBC having channels on cable and satellite, so do ITV and Ch4. In fact they all have 4 general channels. ITV 1-4, C4, E4, More4, Film4. ITV itself in general has very little I watch, but I do watch the occasional thing, more in the last couple of years than in the decade previous, plus a few shows on ITV2 and 4. Channel 4 also has some great shows. I think I'd miss 4 more than ITV though.

And personally, I'd rather pay for the BBC and have the choice of what's on Freeview, what's on satellite and cable is complete rubbish, or the 1000s repeat of something 95% of the time.

 

[Deckerd]

Murdoch just wants some licence money. It's not rocket surgery.

Not so much that, as he wants rid of the licence fee altogether. He doesn't want the BBC as a competitor, I think they even told OFCOM they didn't want any money from a top sliced licence fee.

Yes and we all believe that don't we children? Since he knows the licence fee isn't going anywhere soon, he wants a slice of the cake. Saying he doesn't means about as much as his idea of hands-off editorial management.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Murdoch just wants some licence money. It's not rocket surgery.

Not so much that, as he wants rid of the licence fee altogether. He doesn't want the BBC as a competitor, I think they even told OFCOM they didn't want any money from a top sliced licence fee.

Yes and we all believe that don't we children? Since he knows the licence fee isn't going anywhere soon, he wants a slice of the cake. Saying he doesn't means about as much as his idea of hands-off editorial management.

Oh, I don't doubt Sky would take money for PSB shows if offered, I just think he'd prefer to be rid of his biggest competitor altogether.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Channel 4 still produce a lot of good shows, but they became very bogged down in reality, property and cooking shows over the last few years, but they say they are investing more in drama over the next few years.

Ignorant American here: What are property shows?

For that matter, I don't think anyone answered my earlier question of how TV gambling works?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Channel 4 still produce a lot of good shows, but they became very bogged down in reality, property and cooking shows over the last few years, but they say they are investing more in drama over the next few years.

Ignorant American here: What are property shows?

For that matter, I don't think anyone answered my earlier question of how TV gambling works?

Shows about buying/renovating/selling/moving houses. Not sure if you have them over there but shows like Location, Location, Location, or Relocation, Relocation. Place in the Sun.

Basically they have something like a roulette wheel or virtual horse race or whatever on screen, you call a premium number, place a bet, then watch the wheel spin, or whatever, and see if you won.

 

[_r_]

Wtf are you talking about? Sky are the only big satellite or cable company out there. Virgin Media are after selling all their channels they want to get out of production altogether and just become a service provider. And between Sky and VMTV there is very little original content produced. They focus on acquisitions to fill their schedules.

Sky has Ross Kemp shows, and a talk show, and a drama here and there.

Virgin's video on demand may be one of the best VoD services out there, but I think it's hard to find a better service online than 4oD.

Big Brother was cut because it's ratings were getting low, it may have been one of their higher rated shows but for the cost 2m views is pretty rubbish, and they do have better rated shows.

ITV is still the most popular commercial channel out there, and not only has a large back catalogue of stuff to sell it's also doing very well selling formats.

My point is they may be going through a bad time, but I don't see them going anywhere any time soon.

As for BBC having channels on cable and satellite, so do ITV and Ch4. In fact they all have 4 general channels. ITV 1-4, C4, E4, More4, Film4. ITV itself in general has very little I watch, but I do watch the occasional thing, more in the last couple of years than in the decade previous, plus a few shows on ITV2 and 4. Channel 4 also has some great shows. I think I'd miss 4 more than ITV though.

And personally, I'd rather pay for the BBC and have the choice of what's on Freeview, what's on satellite and cable is complete rubbish, or the 1000s repeat of something 95% of the time.

I did accept that the cable channels didn't produce much original programmimg (though I wanted to point out it's not none, which you inferred earlier.) But I also suggested originality was not important, but in this day and age, where fixed schedules have all disappeared, choice is important: Don't like Sky One's quasi-across-the-board programming, check out something on Sky Arts, or a movie, or see the sports or sky news *at your demand.*

I sound like'm selling the damn thing- But at my core I believe the cable companies have the ideology of 'taking your money and running(My own personal experience with Virgin'.

In a world without the BBC, and a less powerful Ofcom (Less incentive to regulate TV, people have chosen and paid for) this mercantilism will become all too prevalent, which is why I feel a little winced at Murdoch's motivations to see the BBC ultimately disappear, it just appears a tad aggressive.

I suppose the point is we are talking about the *point* of ITV and Channel 4 in the new landscape of British Television. I am convinced these channels definately have less power than they had ten years ago, they both are aware of revenue streams closing up. While they may not disappear, scratch that they will disappear, in an era of fundamental choice, there is no place for channels which, by definition, exist to dictate authority over people's down time in front of the TV set.

It's ironic, that despite the continued successes of ITV's saturday nights (X factor, err... Is love island still on?) that ITV is breaking apart into the regional broadcasters that formed it 50 years ago. Channel 4, formed by somewhat of a responsibility to produce quality programming for the public, is finding this fact, continually a drill into it's spending strategy, it's lost movement. While Channel 4 does not know what's going to happen in the next year, Sky and BBC have strategies for the next decade; and they are conservative estimates.

Other things: ITV2, not really making much of a difference from ITV1, which is not a choice, where you and me, can easily discern the differences between all four BBC channels.

Big Brother ratings were always compared to it's former ratings, not other Channel 4 shows: Apart from Derren Brown, no Channel 4 show ever hits over about 1.7 to 1.8 million; You are quite erudite, so am I, but favourites like Peep show, I think, rarely hit over a million, and even populist soaps even make under a million (For you Americans, that's apocalyptic numbers, despite the relative populations and speculative television habits.)

And, finally, Cable makes up 50% of the UK television market, (with Virgin making, a surprising third of that.)

Apologies, for the Modern Studies essay, but check out the Wikipedia page, if you want to revisit secondary (if you are not there all ready) and discern your own ideas: Television in the United Kingdom.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^I said they produce next to nothing which is true, in comparison to the thousands of hours BBC, ITV and Channel 4 produce.

And Sky isn't on demand, it's still scheduled TV, apart from Anytime, which is fairly rubbish. It just has more choice, but more choice basically means more repeats of stuff you've already seen in most cases since they produce so little, and the acquisitions are repeated till they're run in to the ground to. More choice sure, but you're still choosing between rubbish and stuff you've seen.

There's no doubt ITV and Channel 4 will have to evolve to survice, and so will the BBC and Sky, which they're already doing, whether that's through online on demand and catch up services, or investing in future talent and media.

As for telling the difference and choice between their channels... ITV 1 mainstream, ITV 2 youth and female orientated, ITV 3 aimed at the older audience, ITV 4 aimed at the male audience. Channel 4 mainstream, E4 Youth orientated, More 4 adult audiences, Film 4 movies. It's not hard to tell what each channel is about.

And Channel 4's ratings 8 of their top 15 are non-big brother related and over 2m for the start of the month, go back to before Big Brother started and their entire top 30 is over 1.5m and as high as 3.8m

 

[Starkers]

I don't know why he says only Sky and BBC are relavent because Sky produce next to nothing in original programming, ITV still has around billion pound budget and produces a lot of highly rated shows. Channel 4 still produce a lot of good shows, but they became very bogged down in reality, property and cooking shows over the last few years, but they say they are investing more in drama over the next few years.

I wasn't speaking in the context of original programming, though I mentioned cable and satellite, not just Sky, though Sky alone, actually does produce original programming, but unlike ITV and Channel 4, retain a future capacity to produce original programming: drama, reality, comedy or otherwise, from an ever-increasing wealth from an ever expanding suscription base. Not to mention, those who choose Virgin, BT or other companies that represent the "future" of British Television.

ITV and Channel 4 don't- They, unlike, Satellite companies *like" Sky, can't afford to pay for necessary things like online, and on-demand television. Those who watch Channel 4 lately, have been at first-hand at self-affacing budget cuts, like News services and the Big Brother franchise (Despite it's fatigue, was the highest-rated show on Channel 4)

To put it in a simpler test: To the British users on this forum, when was the last time any of you watched ITV? Compare that to the times, you watched the BBC or even a niche channel on Freeview.

Frankly the only thing I've watched lately on ITV is Primeval, before that it was a Marple which I only watched cos Emilia Fox was in it, before that was that Patrick Stewart scientist thing which I gave up on after half an hour. Prior to this I think it was The Last Train

I do wish Sky would make stuff beyong Ross Kemp vs gangs/Afganistan/The Teletubbies. Ok they do make those Pratchett things which are supposedly quite good, and I used to really like Time Gentleman Please. The only other thing I recall was the Strangerers (which was awful)

I fear for British telly if the BBC ever does die out, but that said its patently grown bloated and needs trimming down. Buying the Lonely Planet brand? BBC3 and 4, sending 10 journalists in where other news broadcasters send 1...The trick is to slim the Beeb down without such a process becoming the thin end of the wedge that leads to it being sqeezed tighter and tighter.

I really don't wanna have to rely on the States for quality drama, or have only Sky News to watch on tv...

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Channel 4 still produce a lot of good shows, but they became very bogged down in reality, property and cooking shows over the last few years, but they say they are investing more in drama over the next few years.

Ignorant American here: What are property shows?

For that matter, I don't think anyone answered my earlier question of how TV gambling works?

Shows about buying/renovating/selling/moving houses. Not sure if you have them over there but shows like Location, Location, Location, or Relocation, Relocation. Place in the Sun.

Basically they have something like a roulette wheel or virtual horse race or whatever on screen, you call a premium number, place a bet, then watch the wheel spin, or whatever, and see if you won.

Yeah, we definately don't have TV gambling here. I suspect people would watch it if we did. I don't think it's legal. Of course, in 48 of the 50 states, casino gambling is only legal on Indian reservations. In Nevada, where gambling is legal, I suspect the FCC still has overwhelming federal regulations that prohibit any kind of TV gambling.

As for property shows, I don't think we have any of those here. Maybe I've seen a few shows plugging particular bits of real estate but those are just paid programming crammed into the wee hours of the morning. More common are paid programs advertising books & classes on learning how to buy & sell real estate.

PBS carries some home renovation stuff in the form of New Yankee Workshop & This Old House but I doubt they're the same.

Other things: ITV2, not really making much of a difference from ITV1, which is not a choice, where you and me, can easily discern the differences between all four BBC channels.

So long as I'm asking stuff, what is the difference between the 4 BBC channels?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I don't know why he says only Sky and BBC are relavent because Sky produce next to nothing in original programming, ITV still has around billion pound budget and produces a lot of highly rated shows. Channel 4 still produce a lot of good shows, but they became very bogged down in reality, property and cooking shows over the last few years, but they say they are investing more in drama over the next few years.

I wasn't speaking in the context of original programming, though I mentioned cable and satellite, not just Sky, though Sky alone, actually does produce original programming, but unlike ITV and Channel 4, retain a future capacity to produce original programming: drama, reality, comedy or otherwise, from an ever-increasing wealth from an ever expanding suscription base. Not to mention, those who choose Virgin, BT or other companies that represent the "future" of British Television.

ITV and Channel 4 don't- They, unlike, Satellite companies *like" Sky, can't afford to pay for necessary things like online, and on-demand television. Those who watch Channel 4 lately, have been at first-hand at self-affacing budget cuts, like News services and the Big Brother franchise (Despite it's fatigue, was the highest-rated show on Channel 4)

To put it in a simpler test: To the British users on this forum, when was the last time any of you watched ITV? Compare that to the times, you watched the BBC or even a niche channel on Freeview.

Frankly the only thing I've watched lately on ITV is Primeval, before that it was a Marple which I only watched cos Emilia Fox was in it, before that was that Patrick Stewart scientist thing which I gave up on after half an hour. Prior to this I think it was The Last Train

I do wish Sky would make stuff beyong Ross Kemp vs gangs/Afganistan/The Teletubbies. Ok they do make those Pratchett things which are supposedly quite good, and I used to really like Time Gentleman Please. The only other thing I recall was the Strangerers (which was awful)

I fear for British telly if the BBC ever does die out, but that said its patently grown bloated and needs trimming down. Buying the Lonely Planet brand? BBC3 and 4, sending 10 journalists in where other news broadcasters send 1...The trick is to slim the Beeb down without such a process becoming the thin end of the wedge that leads to it being sqeezed tighter and tighter.

I really don't wanna have to rely on the States for quality drama, or have only Sky News to watch on tv...

I believe the Trust has started a review in to what slimming could be done. The problem with the BBC sending so many reporters is the fact they have so many, mostly unrelated, outlets, various websites, national and local radio, and news channels. Sure they could send less, but different outlets will want it reported in different ways, so it makes sense to send different reports for different jobs.

I don't think it's fair that people target BBC Three and Four, Four is a very good channel and has made lots of good and interesting shows I don't think would have made it on to BBC Two for lack of time in the schedule, BBC Three has also made a few good shows, but the thing is it's not aimed at you and me, it's aimed at "Da yute" and it brings in some of the highest ratings on digital, so it serves it's audience well and costs pennies from the licence.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Ignorant American here: What are property shows?

For that matter, I don't think anyone answered my earlier question of how TV gambling works?

Shows about buying/renovating/selling/moving houses. Not sure if you have them over there but shows like Location, Location, Location, or Relocation, Relocation. Place in the Sun.

Basically they have something like a roulette wheel or virtual horse race or whatever on screen, you call a premium number, place a bet, then watch the wheel spin, or whatever, and see if you won.

Yeah, we definately don't have TV gambling here. I suspect people would watch it if we did. I don't think it's legal. Of course, in 48 of the 50 states, casino gambling is only legal on Indian reservations. In Nevada, where gambling is legal, I suspect the FCC still has overwhelming federal regulations that prohibit any kind of TV gambling.

As for property shows, I don't think we have any of those here. Maybe I've seen a few shows plugging particular bits of real estate but those are just paid programming crammed into the wee hours of the morning. More common are paid programs advertising books & classes on learning how to buy & sell real estate.

PBS carries some home renovation stuff in the form of New Yankee Workshop & This Old House but I doubt they're the same.

Other things: ITV2, not really making much of a difference from ITV1, which is not a choice, where you and me, can easily discern the differences between all four BBC channels.

So long as I'm asking stuff, what is the difference between the 4 BBC channels?

Yeah, TV Gambling was illegal here until not too long ago. To do anything like it they had to pretend it was a competition of skill and ask dumb questions like "What is the name of the famous superhero, is it A. Superman, B. Uberman, or C. Fatman" and get you to ring lines costing £1 a minute or something. But they relaxed the rules lately.

As for the difference between BBC channels.
BBC One, mainstream, shows a lot of Dramas, soaps, and their big wild life documentaries.
BBC Two, more cult and niche programming. business and political programmes as well as documentaries that are more fly on the wall or about current affairs.
BBC Three, Youth orientated channel, shows a lot of comedies and reality shows.
BBC Four, does more documentaries and dramas aimed at an older audience, mostly about science or culture.

 

[Raxor]

To put it in a simpler test: To the British users on this forum, when was the last time any of you watched ITV? Compare that to the times, you watched the BBC or even a niche channel on Freeview.

I actually dont watch any of the other terrestial channels apart from the bbc, and thats even less so these days (mostly just watch it on iplayer). Nothings appealed to me on ITV and as for channel 4 nothing really appeals to me on it. I think the no adverts is a big thing to do with it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Wasn't actually me who said that.

That's kinda what's the problem in the industry at the minute though, people are finding ways to avoid the advertising so their business model is broken and they don't know how to evolve to suit the new tech.

 

[wamdue]

That's kinda what's the problem in the industry at the minute though, people are finding ways to avoid the advertising so their business model is broken and they don't know how to evolve to suit the new tech.

product placement is part of this, and will be a huge help for ITV, who will be able to take a large % of the money spent on Product Placements in the UK.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

That's kinda what's the problem in the industry at the minute though, people are finding ways to avoid the advertising so their business model is broken and they don't know how to evolve to suit the new tech.

product placement is part of this, and will be a huge help for ITV, who will be able to take a large % of the money spent on Product Placements in the UK.

Well the government are planning on applying the CRR cap to product placement too, so ITV can't over charge and take a disproportionate amount of advertising money. So it might not help as much as you think.

 

[wamdue]

That's kinda what's the problem in the industry at the minute though, people are finding ways to avoid the advertising so their business model is broken and they don't know how to evolve to suit the new tech.

product placement is part of this, and will be a huge help for ITV, who will be able to take a large % of the money spent on Product Placements in the UK.

Well the government are planning on applying the CRR cap to product placement too, so ITV can't over charge and take a disproportionate amount of advertising money. So it might not help as much as you think.

that might be worth doing, the problem is there are so few other channels who could benefits from Product Placement, that applying the CRR cap to Product Placement, might make it rather pointless.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

product placement is part of this, and will be a huge help for ITV, who will be able to take a large % of the money spent on Product Placements in the UK.

Well the government are planning on applying the CRR cap to product placement too, so ITV can't over charge and take a disproportionate amount of advertising money. So it might not help as much as you think.

that might be worth doing, the problem is there are so few other channels who could benefits from Product Placement, that applying the CRR cap to Product Placement, might make it rather pointless.

Well I think nowadays it's rather pointless keeping the CRR in place anyway. I mean ITV is losing its revenue stream, and its audience in a lot of slots, get rid of the restrictions and see if they can survive then, rather than taking public money to prop them up.

 

[wamdue]

I dont like this "either/or" sitution we have going with ITV & licence fee money, sure no one wants ITV to have that money, but that does not mean it can have other things, like the removal of CRR and Product Placement, at which point does the thread of ITV taking some of Licence Fee money come off the table?

the competition commission have ruled that the CRR should not be removed, so I tend to side with them on that, where else can an advertise reach 10 million viewers any night if the week?

whilst I dont support Product Placement, it maybe the best option for ITV.

The bigger question is, why do we nee to prop up ITV? why is ITV not allowed to go out of business? even to the point where Licence Fee money could be spent to keep it open? where on the Channel 3 Licence (which ITV wilfully disregards) does it say, that holding the licence ensures the company's survival?