Mike the Metal Ed Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 BBC budget cuts and job losses: http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2810
Jon the Hat Posted 18 February 2013 Author Posted 18 February 2013 Does anyone think we shouldn't cut the size of the BBC anymore? Bit of a no brainer if you ask me.
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Yeah, **** people who want quality TV without funding Sky and a radio network and website enjoyed the world over.
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 In fact, people who pay the licence fee already partially fund Sky because the BBC have to pay them for the "priviledge" of being on their EPG.
Webbo Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 In fact, people who pay the licence fee already partially fund Sky because the BBC have to pay them for the "priviledge" of being on their EPG. Have to?
Guest Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 In fact, people who pay the licence fee already partially fund Sky because the BBC have to pay them for the "priviledge" of being on their EPG. And even via Sky the BBC is still one of if not the most watched content provider. But this strike is related to the NUJ and so it's news programmes that have been stopped today. Well not all but the majority.
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Have to? That is as I understand it. I doubt they pay by choice. If they played hardball they might get off without paying it, but there'd be service disruption, and as I learned from the Viacom/DirecTV dispute that just pisses off consumers from all sides.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 February 2013 Author Posted 18 February 2013 Yeah, **** people who want quality TV without funding Sky and a radio network and website enjoyed the world over. Enjoyed the world over by people who aren't paying for it.
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Enjoyed the world over by people who aren't paying for it. And so it's ad-supported in those areas for the most part (which I stress goes into BBC Worldwide, not the broadcasting corporation). I thought Tories would like our proud culture being enjoyed the world over? All for 47p a day? Doesn't get much more cost-effective than that does it?
Guest Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Enjoyed the world over by people who aren't paying for it. Other than World Service and other international outlets most domestic content is geo blocked from accessing that content so it's not strictly true.
Webbo Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 That is as I understand it. I doubt they pay by choice. If they played hardball they might get off without paying it, but there'd be service disruption, and as I learned from the Viacom/DirecTV dispute that just pisses off consumers from all sides. They choose to be on the satellite, I don't think it's compulsory.All the freeview channels have to pay to be transmitted via normal digital broadcasting.
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 They choose to be on the satellite, I don't think it's compulsory.All the freeview channels have to pay to be transmitted via normal digital broadcasting. It's in the remit to be accessible to all people in the UK to the best of their ability, and some (few, admittedly) people with Sky choose not to have aerials, or live in old houses and chose not to upgrade to digital. My parents wouldn't if my uncle hadn't had a spare one knocking about.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 February 2013 Author Posted 18 February 2013 And so it's ad-supported in those areas for the most part (which I stress goes into BBC Worldwide, not the broadcasting corporation). I thought Tories would like our proud culture being enjoyed the world over? All for 47p a day? Doesn't get much more cost-effective than that does it? Personally I value a lot of BBC content very highly, and in the most part think it represents good value. There are however a lot of fringe areas which I don't believe add value, and I think the BBC should recognise it is funded by a compulsory tax and it should be constantly looking to focus on core areas and reduce expenditure on unnecessary stuff. You know like broadcasting in Welsh.
Carl the Llama Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 And so it's ad-supported in those areas for the most part (which I stress goes into BBC Worldwide, not the broadcasting corporation). I thought Tories would like our proud culture being enjoyed the world over? All for 47p a day? Doesn't get much more cost-effective than that does it? Exactly, I get ads for exotic destinations and swanky business casino hotels when I check on the football, as well as a lot of content being unavailable to me. It's hardly a free pass to the BBC experience that your license fee pays for.
sphericalfox Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Have to? The BBC by mandate must contribute to commercial stations, as to not hold a monopoly or otherwise advantageous position of 'guaranteed' monies (the tv license), for which is not the case for commercial enterprises. However the commercial stations have specific rules to how they spend that money.
davieG Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 I missed having my breakfast with Susanna Reid this morning.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Enjoyed the world over by people who aren't paying for it. I'd rather pay a license fee than be bombarded by moronic adverts. Weird how so many people don't complain about paying subscription fees for their TV and yet STILL getting bombarded by moronic adverts. The amount of money people pay Sky, they should be ad-free. As for people watching (or more commonly, listening to) BBC for free outside the UK, as I understand it the World Service has never been funded by the license fee - that is until now - and it is one of the things they are concerned about with the cutbacks.
FoxyPV Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Did anyone notice? Yep. I listen to the Today programme on my morning commute. I wasn't best pleased. I'd love to get rid of Sky as we almost exclusively watch channels that are available on Freeview (bar the kids channels for FoxyJr). Unfortunately the area we live means that you have to have Sky to get any signal.
Webbo Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Yep. I listen to the Today programme on my morning commute. I wasn't best pleased. I'd love to get rid of Sky as we almost exclusively watch channels that are available on Freeview (bar the kids channels for FoxyJr). Unfortunately the area we live means that you have to have Sky to get any signal. Freesat?
FoxyPV Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 Freesat? ....googles freesat.... May have to have a good look at that
kingfox Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 They could of put an extra show of Pointless on at 6.30.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 February 2013 Author Posted 18 February 2013 Freesat is great. Get a Humax PVR and plug it into your Sky dish. Voila! It really it as easy as that. Did it about 18 months ago. Box paid for itself a year ago and I am about £300 better off by now. Don't miss any Sky.
cambridgefox Posted 18 February 2013 Posted 18 February 2013 I missed having my breakfast with Susanna Reid this morning. Yes,exactly this,I was livid.Thursday,Friday I wouldn't have minded,but on days Susanna is on is bang out of order.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.