Will the Tories do Murdoch's bidding and kill off the BBC?

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I'm not the typical TV viewer, I spent a few years without a television because quite frankly I found there is a lack of programmes that interest me on all terrestial channels including the BBC.

I have recently cancelled my sky subscription, I would always head for the discovery channels to watch documentaries about war, crime and ones of a civil or mechanical engineering content. (Note: I am certainly not a Top Gear fan)

After 12 months back as a TV viewer in my own house I became very bored with it, and the it's over a month since my sky has been switched off. I'm not missing it at all, but I guess for people who like such as Eastenders, Emmerdale, I'm a celebrity, Big Brother, X factor, ballroom dancing, cooking and all the other associated reality TV crap, I guess it's something they cannot do without.

I say if something is so good why are people worried about taking away the licence fee. If the BBC is truly that good people will pay a subscription to watch it. I believe the BBC would be scared of relying on a viewer subscription to justify their programming.

How do you feel about the fact that you're still paying ITV, Sky, Channel 4, FIVE and Virgin even though you don't make use of broadcast TV?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by ArronC07

How do you feel about the fact that you're still paying ITV, Sky, Channel 4, FIVE and Virgin even though you don't make use of broadcast TV?

From a personally selfish point of view, I would like to be charged per program for what I watch. This would also include any programming from BBC.

So to answer your question I am not happy about paying for anything I do not use. The whole idea of chipping in and paying for other peoples pleasure is not something I agree with. The whole idea appears to be a little Communist in my view, I guess that's why it gains more support from the Labour party.

It does make me wonder why we have internet paid for by the minute PAYG or a monthly allowance on contract, and the same system for mobile phones.

I believe we should have a sensible approach where the amount you watch is reflected in the amount you pay. Perhaps TV is too cheap, that's why parents sit their kids in front of the TV because it's an easy option.

Why can't the same PAYG system be applied to TV?

Originally Posted by Escapee

From a personally selfish point of view, I would like to be charged per program for what I watch. This would also include any programming from BBC.

So to answer your question I am not happy about paying for anything I do not use. The whole idea of chipping in and paying for other peoples pleasure is not something I agree with. The whole idea appears to be a little Communist in my view, I guess that's why it gains more support from the Labour party.

It does make me wonder why we have internet paid for by the minute PAYG or a monthly allowance on contract, and the same system for mobile phones.

I believe we should have a sensible approach where the amount you watch is reflected in the amount you pay. Perhaps TV is too cheap, that's why parents sit their kids in front of the TV because it's an easy option.

Why can't the same PAYG system be applied to TV?

because the BBC ,channel 4,5 and itv have a public service broardcasting commitment they have to cover programs such as ,news ,childrens tv and religious programs these types of program are deemed to be educational and used as a medium to pass information on to the general public .
This is under review at the moment ,hence this thread ,and what is proposed is that channel 5 and itv be allowed to opt out and keep the PSB status of the BBC and channel 4
other options are for the government to sell channel 4 or allow a merger with 4 and 5 while releasing all terestrial channels incuding the BBC to be released from their psb obligations
so you see that having a payg system for all channels will limit peoples access to the news and education programs .I think that their should be at least one channel that has to have this psb commitment for everyone in the country

full details of the proposal here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...olicy-exchange

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

[/B]


because the BBC ,channel 4,5 and itv have a public service broardcasting commitment they have to cover programs such as ,news ,childrens tv and religious programs these types of program are deemed to be educational and used as a medium to pass information on to the general public .
This is under review at the moment ,hence this thread ,and what is proposed is that channel 5 and itv be allowed to opt out and keep the PSB status of the BBC and channel 4
other options are for the government to sell channel 4 or allow a merger with 4 and 5 while releasing all terestrial channels incuding the BBC to be released from their psb obligations
so you see that having a payg system for all channels will limit peoples access to the news and education programs .I think that their should be at least one channel that has to have this psb commitment for everyone in the country

full details of the proposal here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...olicy-exchange

I did actually consider the importance of education and news as I was posting. I agree that news and children's educational programmes should be freely available, although these do not necessarily need to be a separate channel but could be free to view during those periods.

I would not pretend to have the answer, but I feel the current system is not fair for all viewers. I'm not sure if I want to look at a Guardian link.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I did actually consider the importance of education and news as I was posting. I agree that news and children's educational programmes should be freely available, although these do not necessarily need to be a separate channel but could be free to view during those periods.

I would not pretend to have the answer, but I feel the current system is not fair for all viewers. I'm not sure if I want to look at a Guardian link.

i agree that it isn't fair for all users and i wouldn't want to dismiss payg tv out of hand because that may very well be the way tv goes in future years ,but at the moment with digital tv in it's infancy (i think it's fair to say that)i think the stability of the BBC should be maintained in a very volatile and commercial market

One only has to take a look how the communists/dictatorships/fascists governments used TV for propaganda to see that putting all eggs in one basket is not a good idea.

So we need a way in which there is free public broadcasting that can be independent from too much government control(and other unvoted for influences) whilst giving some other viable free market choices which are also hopefully independent of political influence.

Maybe we should be making a clear distinction between entertainment and a free press here?

What I'm truly wanting is a free source of independent information that is available to all,that we can all trust to gives us the truth without interference/influence from any present government or influence from commercial interests.I'm thinking in the latter case how certain commercial interests withdrew their sponsorship from Tiger Woods because of his 'affairs'.Add that kind of puritanical attitude/influence to any TV or news outlet and how much independence does commercial TV still retain?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

Where's the fair choice in commercial TV? Every time I go to the shops I pay for the marketing spend that finances the dross put out by the commercial channels. Even if I don't own a tv...

Exactly Daniel but it seems it's alright for their viewing to be subsidised by the likes of me and that's without even going into the impact commercial channels would take if the BBC went advert based, their out put's would drop considerably and quite a few would go to the wall altogether, still that's alright, £3 a week richer but there's bugger all on telly....

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Escapee

From a personally selfish point of view, I would like to be charged per program for what I watch. This would also include any programming from BBC.

So to answer your question I am not happy about paying for anything I do not use. The whole idea of chipping in and paying for other peoples pleasure is not something I agree with. The whole idea appears to be a little Communist in my view, I guess that's why it gains more support from the Labour party.

It does make me wonder why we have internet paid for by the minute PAYG or a monthly allowance on contract, and the same system for mobile phones.

I believe we should have a sensible approach where the amount you watch is reflected in the amount you pay. Perhaps TV is too cheap, that's why parents sit their kids in front of the TV because it's an easy option.

Why can't the same PAYG system be applied to TV?

I assume then that you prefer to view programming that only everybody wants to watch.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Well lets put it this way, we pay a lot of money for a second rate UK Gold, and that is all the BBC are, repeats each and every week, and over Xmas, it was reported in several papers, that there was 98% repeats. over the festive period.

I have done work at the BBC over several years, and the amount of waste is unbelieveable, and the champagne they buy is disgusting, and we pay for that.

It is a goodjob l don't run that company, l would sack all the pen pushers, and spend the money on new programmes, as they are good at that, but there again, but we have to go back as far as 'The Good old Days' for the good shows.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

It is a good job l don't run that company.

For once Arthur, I actually agree with you!

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Well lets put it this way, we pay a lot of money for a second rate UK Gold, and that is all the BBC are, repeats each and every week, and over Xmas, it was reported in several papers, that there was 98% repeats. over the festive period.

Which newspapers would that have been? Were all these repeats on the BBC?

I have done work at the BBC over several years, and the amount of waste is unbelieveable, and the champagne they buy is disgusting, and we pay for that.

So, just like any other large corporation.

It is a goodjob l don't run that company, l would sack all the pen pushers, and spend the money on new programmes, as they are good at that, but there again, but we have to go back as far as 'The Good old Days' for the good shows.

Never a truer word has been written on this forum.