BBC could be banned from prime time competition

[Marc]

When you say 'Muslim terrorist loving' do you mean actual terrorists or the billions of non-terrorist Muslims who assholes accuse of terrorism?

Normally people who make statements like that mean the latter but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

Given the poster claims the BBC makes fox news look left wing not sure he actually knows what he's on about. The only way to make fox news look left wing is to be further to the right that it.

If Australians think they need to forbid competition they must feel really insecure about their own networks' original content.

They aren't to my knowledge - I was saying that I could the conservative govt in Australia loving to do the same thing to the ABC given they love it as much as the Tories love the BBC and like the Beeb is also has some very good programming (both local content and imported) that gives the commercial networks (who are a protected species) a run for their money in the ratings.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

It's actually a tactic sometimes seen in use by the new right, which claims to be center or conservative, to claim, that the more "old school" right is actually extremely left. As in pointing out, that "Nazi" actually translates as "national socialist" and then ignoring the nationalist part.

 

[TommyR01D]

The government's white paper can be seen here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-bbc-for-the-future-a-broadcaster-of-distinction

Discontent with the BBC has been growing for some time now, especially concerning the license fee (currently £145.50 per year) which must be paid by anyone who watches broadcast TV even if they never use BBC content.

Essentially we have three options:

1. Continue with the status quo: The license fee system is retained, the BBC is basically unchanged.
2. Direct taxpayer funding: Her Majesty's government pays for the BBC the same way it does anything else. The state-owned corporation essentially becomes a non-ministerial department (or perhaps an agency of the DCMS).
3. Commercialisation: The BBC is stripped of any government funding and generates its own money either by running advertisements or by using a subscription model in place of the license fee.

 

[Marc]

1. Continue with the status quo: The license fee system is retained, the BBC is basically unchanged.
2. Direct taxpayer funding: Her Majesty's government pays for the BBC the same way it does anything else. The state-owned corporation essentially becomes a non-ministerial department (or perhaps an agency of the DCMS).
3. Commercialisation: The BBC is stripped of any government funding and generates its own money either by running advertisements or by using a subscription model in place of the license fee.

1. The Tories hate the BBC - they won't want the status quo.
2. That would make the BBC the same as the ABC in Australia. Going by the experience of the ABC this would make the BBC an easy target for pollitical vendettas exspecially from the conservatives.
3. Again from the experience with from the cosnervatives going after the ABC in Australian, the current commercial broadcasters won't want this. It would further dilute the advertising dollars (Pounds) that's available to them and if the BBC has programming that either challengers or beats them in the ratings it will be even worse. No they will want the BBC gone completely but I doubt the Tories in the U.K or the Coalition in Australian would be game to go down that path. It would be an act of electoral suicide that would be hard to top.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Does the license fee apply to everyone who simply owns a TV, even if they have cut the cord and don't have cable or satellite or anything like that?

For instance, I have a TV but the only sources feeding it are my AppleTV and a BluRay player. No broadcast media of any kind (OTA, cable, or satellite). If I was in the UK, would the fee apply?

And do TV detector vans really work, or is that just a sham to scare people?

 

[Marc]

Does the license fee apply to everyone who simply owns a TV, even if they have cut the cord and don't have cable or satellite or anything like that?

For instance, I have a TV but the only sources feeding it are my AppleTV and a BluRay player. No broadcast media of any kind (OTA, cable, or satellite). If I was in the UK, would the fee apply?

And do TV detector vans really work, or is that just a sham to scare people?

As explained up thread it's paid by anyone who watches any broadcast tv.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Does the license fee apply to everyone who simply owns a TV, even if they have cut the cord and don't have cable or satellite or anything like that?

For instance, I have a TV but the only sources feeding it are my AppleTV and a BluRay player. No broadcast media of any kind (OTA, cable, or satellite). If I was in the UK, would the fee apply?

And do TV detector vans really work, or is that just a sham to scare people?

You can own as many TV's as you want, but if you use even one of them to watch or recored live TV, then you require a TV licence by law.

Also just changed recenlty, you could watch iplayer for catch up TV without a TV licence, now with the new changes you will now require a TV licence to watch use BBC iplayer, although i have no idea how they could possibly enforce this.

As for TV detector vans, pure fantasy, they were brought in scare a payment out of people through fear, similar to the ad campaign the BBC did on billboards around the country stating how many people is this specific street did not have a TV licence, reguardless of if they needed one or not.

 

[John Clark]

Our office has been chased to pay the tv licence several times (They bought a fifty inch tv to act as a monitor for the operations department.) Every year, we have to convince them that we can't actually receive live tv but with the iplayer rule now coming in, who knows

 

[cultcross]

• Direct taxpayer funding: Her Majesty's government pays for the BBC the same way it does anything else. The state-owned corporation essentially becomes a non-ministerial department (or perhaps an agency of the DCMS).

• Commercialisation: The BBC is stripped of any government funding and generates its own money either by running advertisements or by using a subscription model in place of the license fee.

The first of these two kills the independent publicly funded broadcaster and replaced it with State Television, which would be a real shame and a gutting of some of the BBCs real strengths - currently they are the only news outlet that even try for neutrality and even though they may make missteps in this department there is at least an effort. State TV would quickly become a propaganda mouthpiece.

The second I don't think Murdoch et all would actually enjoy like they think they would. The BBC command an audience most commercial channels would kill for, and that kind of competition entering the marketplace would make the sort of advertising audience Sky could offer look pathetic.

 

[Marc]

The first of these two kills the independent publicly funded broadcaster and replaced it with State Television, which would be a real shame and a gutting of some of the BBCs real strengths - currently they are the only news outlet that even try for neutrality and even though they may make missteps in this department there is at least an effort. State TV would quickly become a propaganda mouthpiece.

I disagree and hold up the ABC in Australia as an example. It's a long way from being state tv and despite conservatives claiming it's got a left bias, various reviews have found it's not the case the and surveys have shown the over 50% of australians' don't believe it's biased.

It's also not a mouth piece for the government. Plus when the conservatives are in power in they have a mouth piece in the form of the commercial media so why would they need another?

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Our office has been chased to pay the tv licence several times (They bought a fifty inch tv to act as a monitor for the operations department.) Every year, we have to convince them that we can't actually receive live tv but with the iplayer rule now coming in, who knows

This is one of the most digusting aspects of the TV licence fee, their continued hounding of innocent people who do not requires a TV licence, yet are treated like criminals and have to deal with threating letters and door step harrasment, for no other reaon than to try and force the sale of a TV licence, reguardless if you require one or not.

Shocking to think in 2016 a person could actually spend time amounst hardened criminals of all walks for the henious crime of watching live Tv without a licence, how is this still a thing in the UK.

 

[TommyR01D]

Presumably it's because when anyone proposes an alternative we accuse them of a political takeover.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Well they've been encouraged to look at subscription services to increase their funding. It has to be additional services rather than current ones. Hence the recent rumours about "Britflix" streaming service with BBC and ITV.