american tv over in the uk

BBC, no. I firmly believe that if we are going to have a public service broadcaster they should be for us and no one else. None of the BBC channels which aren't aimed at a UK audience or aren't directly receivable in the UK should be allowed to exist imo. BBC World Service radio (and POSSIBLY BBC World TV but only if it's put on UK platforms like SkyDigital aswell) is as close to international broadcasting as the BBC should be allowed to get and then only if it's targetted at UK residents who are away from home. A BBC service aimed at any other nation just seems wrong in principle. I think it's time they decided whether they are a UK Public Service, or an international commercial broadcaster. They can' t be both, but atm they're trying to be.

BBC America et al should definately not be allowed.

ITV - yeah why not. Or any other Commercial channel for that matter. The rights problem would likely be less of a problem there. While we have loads of American TV, there is a distinct lack of British programming over there. Quaint terribly English series like 'The Avengers' (which are undeniably excellent though) seem to be about it. So as it's likely that most of the UK output from UK channels would not have any rights secured in America, and as the American output would allready have been shown by an American TV station, deals to provide carriage of UK channels should be easy to arrange.

Some American stations incorporate their station's call letters in their names (eg. KTLA Los Angeles), but most of the time their name consist of the Network name, the channel it sits on, and a really dumb slogan.

eg: WB 11 Net York, ABC 7 Los Angeles, NBC 5 Chicago, etc
eg: The Tri State's News Leader, News You Can Count On, The Spirit of Texas, etc...

The stations where the network owns and operates them as part of the network itself doesn't have a corporate look. They usually make the stations as local as possible. Quite sickening actually, especially when the stations panic over a measly snowstorm and when the thermometer hits the freezing mark.

Some stations though go the unbeaten path and have unique names... eg) Q6 Spokane (NBC). The Q comes from their call letters KHQ and so forth.

And in some news titles, a small station ID appears at the bottom eg) KING-TV 5/KING-DT 55 Seattle Tacoma

I thought a great deal of UK TV was shown in the US? Certainly a lot of our drama series are (Heartbeat etc).

As for the BBC abroad -- why not? As long as it pays it's way and doesn't eat into the licence fee I see nothing wrong with it.

ITV and C4 yeah that's OK as well, although C4 has the same problem as the BBC as it is part-state owned. Don't want taxes propping up some failing foreign investment!! And no-one in their right mind would want C5 or Sky One anyway

Sometimes they do have names like '11 Alive' Atlanta (which was come up by a consulting firm, and the same firm had created 5 Alive and 22 Alive etc. in other parts of the country)... and I've heard of a station called 'Active 8' (which I assume stands for 'Activate') somewhere in Illinois... otherwise there are 3 major branding schemes...

A) Just the channel number. For example: '... tonight, on Channel 4.'

B) Call letters + channel number. For example: 'KOMO 4', 'KING 5', 'KIRO 7'. This method works the best if the call letters actually sound like a word, as are the cases in the examples above.

C) Parent Network + channel number. For example: 'CBS 2', 'NBC 4', 'ABC 7'. These are mostly for stations that are owned and operated by the networks themselves, but it's becoming increasingly popular to other affiliates (to the delight of the networks).

Except for a few oddballs (for example 'Q13' in Seattle), the 3 methods above are generally the most popular in the States. So, sorry, no imaginative names here.

EDIT: aargh! EDTV beat me to it! Anyway....

Local stations did use to play idents a lot (mostly before local news). In fact, from what I've seen, it was a common practice all the way until the mid-90s. So then instead of having nice little ID animations, they incorporate the obligatory 'legal ID' (call letters + license city) into news open titles, program captions, even during 'coming up' graphics on the news.

(Edited by tvyvr4derek at 1:13 am on Dec. 30, 2001)

Well I'm basing the 'lack of uk tv' on talking to my few American friends who have never heard of any of the programmes I mention.

But BBC in America, I firmly believe is wrong. As a UK Public Service, they should be 100% comitted to that task. Re-transmitting BBC channels in America would mean they are doing something for non-UK citizens, and so could not be 100% comitted to their UK Public service comittments. And there is the question of the license fee and subscriptions. It would definately be wrong for them to be FTA in america when we pay for them, but I'm not sure about subscriptions either. Why should Americans have the luxury of paying for BBC channels only if they want to watch them when we have no choice but to do so?

Unless they are willing to pay a compulsary BBC license fee like we do (like that's gonna happen), why should they get access to our public service channels?

Oh yes, retransmitting the channels is wrong for sure. But having channels over there owned by the BBC which effectively buy the programming and show it either paid for by cable/satellite companies or by advertising, and if they pay their way and are not subsidised in any way by the BBC in London, I see no problem with. There's little difference between that and selling the programmes to foreign TV stations. I mean there's that WGBH channel in Boston which co-finances a lot of BBC stuff; is that wrong as well?

Plus, the BBC has to have a presence in America anyway to do news stuff, so extending this to providing channels etc is a natural extension of this. We aren't paying for them - in fact, we get a lot back!

Would it be wrong if North Americans just pay for subscribing to the BBC Channels, but all the money goes back to UK services? I mean, the BBC doesn't have to listen to the North American viewers... if all they want to see if BBC One, then they should just keep operating the network status quo, but transmit it overseas, or at least with a tape delay.

Chris, BBC America, BBC Canada, BBC Prime and BBC World are all owned by BBC Worldwide, which is a commercial company owned by the BBC. it uses BBC programmes, which I believe it has to pay for even though it is owned by the same company, but is funded entirely commercially,

No license-fee money goes into any BBC Worldwide enterprise, they stand alone as a seperate company. On the other hand, any profits the BBC-W channels make is ploughed back into programme-making to supplement the license fee, so we in the Uk actually benefit from the BBC's commercial activities.

Incidentally, BBC Worldwide also runs all the BBC's tie-in magazines, videos and the UKTV branded channels of cable/satellite/digital TV

Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same thing. Satellite and digital cable companies have HBO, Showtime, etc packages that you have to pay for separate from your subscription price - why couldn't we have a BBC package giving use 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and News 24. Granted it would be expensive, and rightfully so, but I don't see anything wrong with it. The BBC wouldn't 'owe' anything to the subscribers. BBC One is shown in Belgium and the Netherlands (at least) so why not the US/Canada etc? The only problem that I can think of (other than British laws/politics etc) is that the beeb would have to pay something to the carriers (satellite/cable companies) which would violate a number of regulations I'd imagine. Ah well, we can always dream

Yes, us North Americans are stuck with rehashed imitation BBC.

I know one person though who's outraged at the fact that Ireland gets BBC services.

But anyway I really wouldn't mind getting News 24 instead of world. It doesn't matter to me if UK News comes top priority over world news. I would actually like to know what's going on in the UK, even though it probably won't affect me the least bit.

(Edited by EDTV at 6:39 pm on Dec. 29, 2001)

Exactly. It's a good thing. And if the US citizens were prepared to pay $160 a year (roughly the same as the licence fee without VAT) for BBC1, 2, Choice Knowledge and News 24 in a subscriber pack, with obviously all difficult programmes (not that many on the Beeb!!) replaced with old repeats or US-produced stuff I see no problem with it.

Wouldn't need to be compulsory....

The only issue I see with this is that it may restrict BBC exports to other US channels. But only if lots and lots of US people subscribed, which would bring in huge amounts of money to the BBC here!!!