BBC - just how do we continue to justify the fee?

Possibly, what would be the cost of upgrading all the digiboxes currently in use? Assuming they could be upgraded.But the tv companies will never put out a piccie to compare with analogue as regards motion artefacts and the like -why? - because it'll take up too much spectrum.

Almost all of the set top boxes and IDTVs currently installed used MPEG2 hardware decoding (which is cheap to manufacture in high numbers) They would need to be replaced to support new codec technologies like WM9 or MPEG4 - upgrading isn't an option.

With over 6m Sky boxes installed - plus over 2 million Freeview receivers this is a seriously expensive business.

Surely the last thing you want to do is adopt a proprietary standard espoused by just Microsofy? Wouldn't an open, licence-free, system be more in the public interest. The last thing I want is a TV that runs Windows...

.
In fairness to them, the BBC did want to do this, but their proposal was rejected.


Apparantly, when VHF was switched off in 1985 the handful of people still using it were given free UHF sets on the quiet. Perhaps this will happen again.


Digital Television can offer something more, but I think the UK was too keen to be seen to be at the forefront of it and rushed into it too fast, adopting underdeveloped technology which couldn't meet the economic requirements of the broadcasters. As a result we have sh*te overcompressed pictures and no serious development of HDTV. It was also done partly to try and finally get widescreen off the back burner, digital tv and widescreen do not go hand in hand despite the way they are marketed.

But basically, I don't think there was any real need to go digital now. And imo, Sky was much better quality and much more watcheable when it only had 30 channels. ITV was in better shape when it didn't have so many competitors, TV in both technical and programme quality was imo in much better shame 6/7 years ago than it is now.

Dear boy, once you have an understanding of education, history, have gained puberty, lived a little outside the world of your bedroom and stopped sucking your mothers breasts you can call me what you want, but until then please try to keep to the fact that everyone has an opinion and the point of a forum is to thrash out ideas that might or might not work.

From reading the posts, it seems that most of you are happy with the current BBC services - I am not, so therefore somebody has to try some thoughts out. Personally, the licence fee should represent the best in public broadcasting - it doesn't. That is why I advocate the splitting of the BBC into more commercial divisions. Think of this the next time you sit down to another repeat of 'Only Fools & Horses' or the benile 'Changing Rooms'.

For those of you have been on the planet more than thirteen years (this is very rare on this forum) I do not support wholesale privatisation, indeed the whole point of the share split was to bring it into a Government majority.

Some background information for you here, I am a member of the Labour Party, a Trade Union official and I have moved on a bit from the 1970's. The BBC is a business, like it or not. If it doesn't change it will wither and die or, even worse, under a Conservative administration it will simply be doomed to a totally commercial future.

I have noted a few errors in my original plans. As an oversight, I failed to mention that I wouldn't have adverts on BBC Radio 3/4 or Local Radio. I also forgot to mention World Service. As this is actually funded seperate from the fee, it would remain as a true public service broadcaster in the sense that certain countries cannot rely on local broadcasters giving them an independent view.

As for Gilligan, even he has admitted that his statements were incorrect. Funnily enough, if you actually read papers as well as watching TV, you do get a wider view.

Sorry , old man , but your contribution reminded me of so many attempts to reform some institution or other - local government reform, the civil service , the railways, The BBC (your favourite ) under John Birt etc. etc.
All doomed to abject failure - only succeeding in adding to an already large workforce- and history proves me right on that point. All the people brought in or charged to carry out the work soon find ways to feather their nest and create other work in pursuit of the goal ( being in the Labour party you should be over-familiar with this ) that they soon become part of the firmament. Neil Kinnocks doing well isn't he ?
You may well have the best of motives but unless you want to do a Stalin or a Mao ,( or a Bin Laden ) you ain't going to get anywhere.
What I do in my bedroom, by the way , no longer concerns my mother or you. Good luck in your rise to the top of the Politburo septic tank with all the other floating voters..

Because the license fee is to rise once again next year - I am NOT going to contribute towards the propaganda that is Children In Need!

I do not need to see 85% of air-time given over to artistes trying to secure the no one slot.
This year's Children in Need has basically been a very long music promotion with some dodgy regional links and some rather damp ramblings from Terry and Gaby - it almost makes The Terry and Gaby show look professional and interesting!

To the BBC - how about trying a few new and innovative ideas for next year's Children in Need event?

I've been proposing a different means of funding Public Service Broadcasting and here it is.

Instead of funding the institution to provide the programmes, why not fund the programmes directly? That's what happened in the NHS - where each doctor got a budget and spent it as seen fit rather than the institution getting funded and doctors say go to X hospital to get treated where X is always the same for that doctor. So why not each programme? Determine what is and isn't a public service programme, and fund those - no matter who is broadcasting it?

That means, if ITV finds it more appropriate and beneficial to make more of its schedule public service, and the BBC can do commercial better than ITV then market forces by bidding for licence fee money for making money would then even things out. The BBC would lose having a great big lump sum for making programmes and running its operations, but would be granted commercial freedom and can run commercials and earn money by other means. Commercial broadcasters would probably lose their share of the advertising pot thanks to a commercially freed BBC, but now have access to the licence fee funds on a per-programme basis. I guess the only proviso that a broadcaster would have access to licence fee funds is that they're accessible on all three digital broadcast formats - terrestrial, cable and satellite.

So EastEnders, Changing Rooms, etc would be commercial programmes, but Panorama, Watchdog, and yes even ITV and C4 programmes of a 'public service' nature (documentaries, educational programming, informational programmes etc) would get funded by the licence fee.

As I said, a bit like what happened to the NHS. Your doctor could choose to send you to a private hospital to be treated if that was most cost efficient and in the best interest (like ITV receiving licence fee money for programming). However your NHS hospital can now solicit your funds for elective surgery and you pay for it out of your own pocket (like the BBC showing commercials to fund its programming).

Mark.

Interestingly, Alistair Campbell also admitted this week his attacks on the BBC were "over the top" ... shame you didn't see fit to mention that.