The British Broadcasting Corporation....

[Anonymous]

one off:why pay for something i never watch rather give fee to nhs

what for? the NHS has got plenty of money? (well it has had over the last 8 years at least - the feast is now officially over)

Any bureaucracy can **** your money up the wall - as it is we've got too many beds therefore too many nurses and too many managers trying to achieve too many disparate targets!!!

Sorry rant over (and no disrespect to the hard working individuals who commit themselves to public service - its the system and the deadwood I'm getting agitated about)

Back to the OP - the BBC has plenty of faults but its a far cry and positively utopian compared to anything that that philistine Murdoch and his apprentice could ever dream of..

We need less Murdoch in our world, our press and our public and political lives.

 

[sometimesuk]

Just read this article on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8149767.stm

What caught my attention was this comment:

"BBC Worldwide made more than half of its revenue from abroad, from just below half last year.

The aim is to generate two-thirds of revenue from abroad by 2012"

I think with some refocusing of the "business" the BBC can be even more successful than what it all ready is.

 

[Anonymous]

doesn't the fact that they sell the programs all over the world make them a commercial business and not a public service?? i don't see why i should pay a fee to a business who's services i don't use personally.

 

[sonycentre]

Exellent value for money for the bbc.s out put,local radio,bbc hd,bbc 1,2,3,4,,And main radio stations,and also remember that the "beeb are investing the new super hd format with the folks over at japan,also own bbc films.so yes the beeb is worth every penny,and we the british public should be proud that we make the best tv in the world.if any of you are not sure,whilst abrord check out the local tv stations,then you will know what i mean,also on the sky tv front,remember like the beeb sky are a
Business,they are there to make money,rupert murdochs son james just wants to follow in daddys footsteps,and the hatred for the man comes from mostley sky custumers,if you really hate the murdoch clan,get rid of sky tv,dont buy any news corp led paper(sun,times,notw)any harper collins published book,watch any 20th century fox films from 1985 onwards,or any fox tv programmes."damm i love fringe,the simpsons" lol

 

[Messiah]

I also think the BBC provides an excellent service - the website especially as I use this all the time.

Not having to watch adverts is also a good reason to pay some of that fee!

 

[professorhat]

Messiah:Not having to watch adverts is also a good reason to pay some of that fee!

 

[Nadeac]

It s about time they knocked the fee {or a licence as they call it on the head }and everthing went pay as u go !

Lets face u pay the licence just to view BBC channels all its really for is to keep pre madonna tv personalities in overpaid jobs!!

If they bought out a tv that couldnt recieve BBC channels ud still get done for not haveing a license even though the other channels dont get any money ,and have to make their own through advertiseing

Its ajoke paying that licence for what u get out of it

Discovery channels have more interesting watchable things on in one week than all BBC channels in one year

Mark

 

[chebby]

Nadeac:
It s about time they knocked the fee {or a licence as they call it on the head }and everthing went pay as u go !

Lets face u pay the licence just to view BBC channels all its really for is to keep pre madonna tv personalities in overpaid jobs!!

If they bought out a tv that couldnt recieve BBC channels ud still get done for not haveing a license even though the other channels dont get any money ,and have to make their own through advertiseing

Its ajoke paying that licence for what u get out of it

Discovery channels have more interesting watchable things on in one week than all BBC channels in one year

Mark

u mustbe jocking rite?

Hay m8 wot about yoofanasia for anywun who grew up pre madonna ?

 

[simonlewis]

I never watch the bbc, refuse to have it on in my flat, the first tv licence i bought was when i bought a new tv in 1997, before that i used to buy second hand tv's lived in rented accomodation & never bothered with the licence, i don't listen to bbc radio either, i don't mind a few adverts if the tv or radio is free.

 

[Nadeac]

chebby:Nadeac:

It s about time they knocked the fee {or a licence as they call it on the head }and everthing went pay as u go !

Lets face u pay the licence just to view BBC channels all its really for is to keep pre madonna tv personalities in overpaid jobs!!

If they bought out a tv that couldnt recieve BBC channels ud still get done for not haveing a license even though the other channels dont get any money ,and have to make their own through advertiseing

Its ajoke paying that licence for what u get out of it

Discovery channels have more interesting watchable things on in one week than all BBC channels in one year

Mark

u mustbe jocking rite?

Hay m8 wot about yoofanasia for anywun who grew up pre madonna ?

NO ,Do u work for the BBC?

 

[professorhat]

It's true, it's true - everyone who enjoys programming on the BBC actually works for them

 

[Anonymous]

The BBC is the only thing left in the world which is not (entirely) influenced by advertisers. It is important not just to this country but to the entire world. There is some EDITED BY MODS on it (trying to keep everyone happy) but if it didn't exist we might as well be EDITED BY MODS, pretty much what the big corporations want. It's likely to be dismantled if and when the conservatives get in, along with the NHS. EDITED BY MODS

 

[Anonymous]

It makes me sad that so many people are against the BBC, most of them probably pay £££ for Sky, many probably read the Daily Mail hate fest and will be glad when the NHS is slowly undermined and dismantled. I'm glad I haven't got kids. I despair....

 

[Nadeac]

Most people are not against it ,they are just sick of seeing their own money wasted away.!

Ok its not just the BBC its others areas aswell

Like a previous poster said the money could be put to much better use elsewere.IE the NHS!

How can a tv station be as important as somthing like the NHS?

 

[sometimesuk]

At the end of the day you get what you pay for.

The BBC gets the money we get a quality organisation.

They are inefficiencies in every organisation, this is nothing new. Sometimes the private sector isnt alway better. Cleaning in hospitals appears to be a prime example of this, especially considering MRSA.

The BBC is indendantly run like a business and does a good job, can you imagine how much more it would cost, with less results if it were run by government and local councils!

I think if the tories say they want rid of the BBC, they would have a huge blackslash on thier hands.

I do agree though that they should return the £5.50 extra per license they have recieved for the digital handover, unless this money is spent improving the digital service, both signal issues and HD.

Not sure what its like in other parts of the country, but in parts of wales, may be an issue with hills and mountains etc, but you can have full signal strength one min, then it starts raining, and you have lost all t.v signal.

I think once this handover is complete, there will be loads of complains here about loss of service.

 

[chebby]

The transmitter network is owned and run by a subsidiary of National Grid Transco nowadays and not the BBC. (Before that it was Crown Castle International since 1997 when the BBC was required to sell it.)

In fact National Grid Wireless (the transmitter division) was sold to Arqiva who are themselves owned by an Australian Investment bank (Macquarie).

 

[Andrew Everard]

Nadeac:all its really for is to keep pre madonna tv personalities in overpaid jobs!!

And of course those who have come along since Madonna...

 

[Anonymous]

Lots of Tory-bashing here, many of us area modern bunch and don't want to do away with everything that has a hint of socialism in, I for one love the BBC and the NHS. And I don't think major cutbacks of the BBC would occur under them, maybe some regional programming, but I generally turn over at 6:30 so I don't have to listen to stories of snails in post boxes and the like.

The BBC provides excellent value, I would pay more like Chebby, but considering some of the things we pay for, I think we could pay less, if that makes sense. BBC 1 and 2 are brilliant, News 24 and parliament are good too IMO. As for online stuff, go for it, Murdoch can shut up about it, they were all OK with giving News Corp online stuff for free when advertising was going well, now we see a big U-turn. BBC 3 and BBC 4 are very different, but maybe one of them could be done away with, the odd gem of an arts/science programme on BBC 4 that never makes it to BBC 2 is unfortunate. Maybe have BBC 4 programming before 9/10pm and the new comedy and the like after.

I think Radio 1, 2 and 4 are well worth the money, between them a decent fraction of 20m people listen to the respective morning programmes, and since Sky took over and robbed us of big sporting events, which I'm not prepared to spend £15 on top of the £17.50 for a subscription on, Radio 5 Live really does the job.

It's strange that these days many things are becoming free with advertising, Spotify and YouTube for music, YouTube again for some TV content, the various OD services, online games, books, even some films are available for free. Premium services will always be able to charge, the FT online service is an example, but when people have such a variety of media to choose from, people will always obey their wallets, because although I love the Times, other News Corp stuff, like Sky and NOTW aren't really worth a subscription IMO, someone will always do it for free, maybe differently or not as well, but there's too much competition.

Magazine websites like this one provide a free service, I get the magazine occasionally, but if I just want to browse, the two week or so lag for reviews is OK for me, even through that horrible Duracell advert.

 

[chebby]

I can't stand this whole idea of scrapping things "if I don't like it" or because "only some minority audience likes it".

Everyone - by someone else's definition - is a 'minority audience' at some time or another.

Even you.

(The 'you' is not directed at any particular individual nor specifically at the last poster I should add.)

There is a word for a society where the interests of, and provision for 'minorities' are curtailed (despite them being contributors too) in favour of the 'populist' and popular. And I am NOT just talking about minorities in the sense of ethnically diverse but minorities of interest within our culture.

 

[Anonymous]

It's what people think though, when people see that proportional to the amount of viewers they get, BBC 3 and 4 get more money than BBC 1 or 2 and they don't watch these channels, or that the recently reported £5.50 of the fee goes to help the elderly change to digital, they don't like it. Who wants to pay for what they don't use? I don't mind, I never listen to Radio 3, or Radio 1 extra, but I'm happy to pay for them because someone who likes those stations is paying for what I want to watch or listen to. My point was that there are things that the BBC can cut down on. I don't count content that I don't use as inefficiencies.

As it is, I'm happy to pay that £140 or whatever the cost is, but we could pay less and get the same service, in terms of quality and spectrum.

 

[Anonymous]

To be honest, the moment I watched this was worth a significant chunk of my license fee

Link (youtube)

 

[Andrew Everard]

Not really a blooper, is it? More of a snippet edited out of context...

 

[chebby]

chris_beale:...or that the recently reported £5.50 of the fee goes to help the elderly change to digital, they don't like it. Who wants to pay for what they don't use?

Yeah, don't you just hate it when we have to cough up a fiver to help an old person?

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5evS-ApSNQ

Now that's a blooper!

And Chebby, I'm not talking about my views, I'm just saying that people will be angry (rightfully or not) when they have to pay for things they don't use. I clearly stated that personally I am fine with paying for such servives.

 

[Big Chris]

LOL! "As a news source, Fox is about as plausible and useful as an episode of Thundercats". Nice one Mr Brooker (always been a fan of 'Screenwipe').

All the while I don't have to sit through adverts I won't begrudge the BBC my licence fee. They're kind enough to stick 'Murder, She Wrote' & 'Monk' on in the afternoon for unemployed/elderly folk to watch. Although I still think the Lotto draw should be just that, a draw, not a draw spun out to 40 minutes and encased in a cruddy quiz show.

My Wife and I have our own little game with regards to BBC London News (at 6:30pm). We've opened a book on the first time somebody says "community" (They love saying "community". It's like they think if they say it enough, kids'll stop knifing each other. It drives me potty).

The winner gets to turn over to a channel of their choosing.