BBC wants licence fee of RPI + 2.3%

I tuned in tonight at 19:30 to watch Eastenders on BBC1 and was bombarded with around FOUR MINUTES of adverts on the BBC.

I understand that other commercial channels have to provide adverts for programmes and the advertisers to generate income - but - the BBC isn't chasing ratings and doesn't have to please advertisers.

So can anyone tell me why Eastenders started way after 19:30 and the break before-hand contained so many adverts? (my estimation is about 4 minutes worth!)

When ITV begin a programme late or Channel 4 insert a break at the start of Lost it is mentioned on TVF but the BBC seem to be able to get away with anything. (even though it's OUR BBC!)

The junction before EastEnders did not contain 4 minutes of trails. It contained approx 1.00 of trails and a 2.30 brand promo for Children In Need.

The breaks on the BBC do now seem as long as commercial rivals. BBC3 is the worst, often the same few trailers over and over again!


Another thing, do you think it's still worth there being a Black and White TV licence?

I apoligise I was 30 seconds light!

THREE MINUTES THIRTY SECONDS is still a long break on a BBC channel.

This is one annoying thing about the BBC, they are getting all the benefits of being a commercial channel without any of the problems

It does seem to be a bit cheeky to be asking for a large increase in the licence fee when competitors are strapped for cash and cost cutting

The main benefit of being a commercial channel, is making a profit. The BBC is not making a profit.

The licence fee channels feel more commercial then BBC PRIME

That's because the BBC's commercial rivals tend to transmit more foreign imports, and/or back-catalogue programmes (AKA very old repeats), as apposed to commissioning/producing new British programming. Making a new programme generally costs more money than buying an old one from another company.

Remember there is a big diffrence between a paid advert and a trail. having paid adverts have a direct effect on editorial and production decision making.

I suspect that the £150 figure is a bluff by the BBC - if you're negotiating for more money you always ask fo more than you need, that way when it is negotiated down it reaches an amount that is adequate for both sides. Say they take it down to £135 - the government are happy because they think they've got one over on the beeb; the BBC are happy because they only wanted £135 all along!

Broadband services from the BBC, as you rightly say, are currently used by a minority of licence fee payers.

However, the BBC has always been at the forefront of research and development of new means of content transmission and improvements to services.

It is very likely that Broadband will be one of the methods used for content distribution over the coming years: not just to personal computers (streaming and pod-casting), but to future generations of HDTV set-top-boxes/PVRs. In years to come, if you wish to watch High Definition programming from the BBC, it is very likely that Broadband will play a role in how that programme reaches your TV set.

This liecence fee thing it's way too high,

I mean I just got NTL Digital my dad got it me. I think a tv liecence should be £70 pound a year something like that..

Anybody agree with me?

Skysportslee

OK, so the entire junction may not have contained trails, but this is still rather a lot. Could the annos not have signposted programmes either side of the CIN promo?