BBC Parliament ownership discussion

While I don't want to have to descend into management-speak, I think that what the Inspector and noggin are trying to get across is that the marginal cost of running the channel is very small.

And surely you've seen how cheaply the channel is run? Just look at what happens when the playout system falls over, or when someone sneezes near Millbank's power supply...

are you referring to the DVD player from Lidl that runs the emergency backup copy of "the record" if the main channel fails?

... but there IS a cost. And in this financial climate, when other more customer-used channels and outlets are under threat, why support a feed that could quite easily be transmitted by someone else?

For goodness sake, stream it on the internet!


If it's a 'state' thing, then the state should pay for everything. Not the TV licence payer. Not a single penny.

Blimey, the transmitter costs are absolutely minimal.

It could be streamed on the internet, so why broadcast it at all?
'Minimal Costs'?

From Governor's Report.
BBC Parliament £4m

People who live in caravans or narrow boats or remote locations where it's unfeasible to lay a cable are limited to a monthly mobile/satellite data allotment which is insufficient for streaming television channels and programmes online.

What does that £4m cover?

What does that £4m cover?

Answer:-
Other, some more popular programmes, sport, entertainment, Radio Stations...... investigative journalism..

Enough, your choice, you pay for it. Which would YOU rather have?

Why do you need to see them (MPs) anyway? Make it an audio-only channel.
Why not slot adverts in between debates? Call it ITV5. Remove it from the licence-fee, it has more important things to do.

I know, right! It's stupid, it's not like people can't tell who all MPs, MSPs, Lords, MEPs and AMs are by just listening, is it? Only Bio-Dimbleby can do that.


Should the bill be passed or do you think grandma's cooking is better? Call now on 09011 563204, tweet us or have your say on our Facebook page.

So you don't know what the £4m pays for? If the £4m covers the cost of producing the coverage of the channel, not just the broadcast of that coverage, then how much would be saved by not broadcasting it (since we still need the content producing)?

Let "Hansard" do it and sell it on.

£4m is £4m no matter which way you try and hide it.
£4m which could be used elsewhere.

IF the £4m is the BBC contribution to the costs and assuming that SKY News and ITV and others pay equal shares, then it gets very expensive!

But it is important. If the BBC are paying £3.95m/year (along with Sky & ITV) to produce the coverage, and only £50k/year to actually broadcast that coverage, it's far better value for money to actually get that coverage on air. If they're paying £50k/year to produce the coverage and £3.95m/year to broadcast it, then I'll agree with you, save the money.

£4m/year is pittance for a channel which broadcasts live coverage (almost) all year round. I've worked on programmes with a higher budget for one edition. That £4m won't go very far if were to divert it elsewhere. It wouldn't surprise me to find it does cost over £10m/year to produce all the coverage for the channel.