The BBC Licence Fee Payer subsidises to the World....
Steve F
Radio 1
Radio 2
Radio 3
Radio 4
Radio 5 Live
Radio 5 Sports Extra
Radio 6 Music
Radio 7
Radio 1 Extra
BBC Television News
BBC News 24
BBC Local News Broadband Content
BBC Local Radio
And putting it on topic:
Doctor Who On Line (including webcast specials such as Shalka and
Shada - 'broadcast quality')
Children in Need Special Episode - near broadcast quality
what do I, a licence fee payer, get out of this? Zilch, bar an
increase in the licence every year under threat of a prison sentence
or a huge fine.
Thanks BBC, you really do make my day. After all I am a charity,
willing to pay for something (under threat of prison) that the whole
world can enjoy.
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Steve F <steveNOSPAMfree...@yahoo.comPLEASE> wrote:
>Via the Internet:
>
>Radio 1
>Radio 2
>Radio 3
>Radio 4
>Radio 5 Live
>Radio 5 Sports Extra
>Radio 6 Music
>Radio 7
>Radio 1 Extra
>BBC Television News
>BBC News 24
>BBC Local News Broadband Content
>BBC Local Radio
>
>And putting it on topic:
>
>Doctor Who On Line (including webcast specials such as Shalka and
>Shada - 'broadcast quality')
>Children in Need Special Episode - near broadcast quality
>
>what do I, a licence fee payer, get out of this? Zilch, bar an
>increase in the licence every year under threat of a prison sentence
>or a huge fine.
I thought that in the UK you didn't any longer need a licence for a radio,
or to access the BBC's on-line website over the Internet. So what this
comes down to is BBC Television News (I don't even know what that
is referring too - and BBC News 24 (hey, I didn't know that was on the
Internet, does anyone have the URL! .. and the odd charity special.
Presuming that the charity special doesn't get anyone's goat (the whole
idea was to get money for charity, right? So the wider distribution
the better), then what we have is BBC news programming available on
the Internet.
Presumably someone in the UK who doesn't have a TV also get's this free,
right? Not sure I see the issue here ... if people in the UK get it
for free, why worry about the rest of the world?
Nick
Steve F
Radio 1
Radio 2
Radio 3
Radio 4
Radio 5 Live
Radio 5 Sports Extra
Radio 6 Music
Radio 7
Radio 1 Extra
BBC Television News
BBC News 24
BBC Local News Broadband Content
BBC Local Radio
And putting it on topic:
Doctor Who On Line (including webcast specials such as Shalka and
Shada - 'broadcast quality')
Children in Need Special Episode - near broadcast quality
what do I, a licence fee payer, get out of this? Zilch, bar an
increase in the licence every year under threat of a prison sentence
or a huge fine.
Thanks BBC, you really do make my day. After all I am a charity,
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Presumably someone in the UK who doesn't have a TV also
> get's this free, right? Not sure I see the issue here ...
> if people in the UK get it for free, why worry about the
> rest of the world?
Oh, I'm sure Steve isn't happy about them either...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Hooray, Hooray, it's a wonderful day
For I have found my cow!
-"Where's My Cow?" (original version)
Steve F
1. The radio services are still provided by money earnt by the
licence fee (therefore British licence fee payers still pay them under
threat of prison)
2. Technically for just using BBC on line, you have to pay for a TV
licence. If all you had at home was a computer with no TV card, but
used the on line services of the BBC, including watching the News on
line, you are still required to have a TV licence (you are still using
the BBC's TV services)
3. Was there a way on the CiN special site for people to donate
before watching the webcast? No there wasnt.
4. The only 'charity special' are licence fee payers subsidising the
enjoyment of a worldwide audience of it's services - something that
isnt in my remit when I pay it every year
5. To say 'because someone doesnt it pay it in the UK means I'm quite
within my rights to use it' is total bull
I resent subsidising a service to a worldwide audience - particularly
to one part of that audience that has shown no interest in buying the
new series for TV broadcast itself.
Steve F
<daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Also Sprach Nicholas Fitzpatrick:
>
>> Presumably someone in the UK who doesn't have a TV also
>> get's this free, right? Not sure I see the issue here ...
>> if people in the UK get it for free, why worry about the
>> rest of the world?
>
>Oh, I'm sure Steve isn't happy about them either...
I'll be happier when we didnt have to pay it and the BBC was a
subscription only affair. In the free market this is the only way
forward.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
We could rename it BSkyC...
Simon Watkins
news:jgipo1pun191bg66v...@4ax.com...
> Thanks BBC, you really do make my day. After all I am a charity,
> willing to pay for something (under threat of prison) that the whole
> world can enjoy.
Yeah, you are one of these people who would rather cut off your own nose to
spite your face and do without these services, rather than stomach the idea
of anyone else having a freebie.
It doesn't matter that your own life is enriched by it, but then some people
are just bitter and twisted eh ?
--
Simon
Chris Evans
<steveNOSPAMfree...@yahoo.comPLEASE> wrote:
>I resent subsidising a service to a worldwide audience - particularly
>to one part of that audience that has shown no interest in buying the
>new series for TV broadcast itself.
So why whine about it here? We can change what about this, exactly?
Write to the Times and the Beeb about it.
Steve F
Tell that to the single parent jailed because she couldnt afford the
licence fee.
Andy Leighton
No-one is jailed because they can't afford the licence fee. It isn't
a punishment available to the magistrate. They are jailed when they
refuse to pay their fine.
As the licence fee works out at under £3 per week - I would guess that
there are few people who cannot afford it. Was that single parent a
smoker? Did she have a mobile phone? Did she have Sky? Did she have
a regular drink? If the answer to any of those questions is a yes - my
sympathy for her is lessened.
I'm not ideologically attached to the licence fee - however I have
not seen an alternate funding scheme that would guarantee the quality
and breadth of output from the BBC.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Teh Wraith
news:jgipo1pun191bg66v...@4ax.com...
> Thanks BBC, you really do make my day. After all I am a charity,
> willing to pay for something (under threat of prison) that the whole
> world can enjoy.
>
Reminds me of that line in a BF Audio, "No Place Like Home". Erimem has
found the Doctor's wardrobe and asks about his "fur coat." The Doctor
quickly remarks that it isn't real fur, (as if killing animals is bad) and
goes on about how it was likely "Made in Taiwan." (In sweatshop?).
Hee hee.
-Wraith-
Wanderin...@gmail.com
I'm sure she'd have an even tougher time affording it if they abolished
the license fee.
1. Taxes would go up because the government would get back control of,
and have to maintain, all of the transmitters (currently part of the
BBCs remit)
2. Less people watching would mean the subscription fee + change in
taxes would be higher than the old license fee.
Since I assume, as a DW fan, you'd subscribe to this subscription-only
version of the BBC, what you're actually saying is that you want to pay
more money in order to spite the rest of the world. Very noble of you.
WL.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
And if the rest of the world wasn't getting free DW then she
wouldn't have been?
Steve F
>Steve F wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:44:28 -0500, "Simon Watkins"
>> <simonwre...@removethisntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Steve F" <steveNOSPAMfree...@yahoo.comPLEASE> wrote in message
>> >news:jgipo1pun191bg66v...@4ax.com...
>> >> Thanks BBC, you really do make my day. After all I am a charity,
>> >> willing to pay for something (under threat of prison) that the whole
>> >> world can enjoy.
>> >
>> >Yeah, you are one of these people who would rather cut off your own nose to
>> >spite your face and do without these services, rather than stomach the idea
>> >of anyone else having a freebie.
>> >It doesn't matter that your own life is enriched by it, but then some people
>> >are just bitter and twisted eh ?
>>
>> Tell that to the single parent jailed because she couldnt afford the
>> licence fee.
>
>I'm sure she'd have an even tougher time affording it if they abolished
>the license fee.
>
>1. Taxes would go up because the government would get back control of,
>and have to maintain, all of the transmitters (currently part of the
>BBCs remit)
Not correct - the transmitters are owned (or at least were) by NTL.
Nevertheless, they were sold off eons ago.
>2. Less people watching would mean the subscription fee + change in
>taxes would be higher than the old license fee.
Perhaps - but then the BBC would be supplying what was required,
instead of a gaggle of game shows and a News channel no bugger
watches.
>Since I assume, as a DW fan, you'd subscribe to this subscription-only
>version of the BBC, what you're actually saying is that you want to pay
>more money in order to spite the rest of the world. Very noble of you.
No, I just want choice. At the moment I have none.
Steve F
<daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Also Sprach Steve F:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:44:28 -0500, "Simon Watkins"
>> <simonwre...@removethisntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Steve F" <steveNOSPAMfree...@yahoo.comPLEASE>
>>>wrote in message
>>>news:jgipo1pun191bg66v...@4ax.com...
>>>> Thanks BBC, you really do make my day. After all I am a
>>>> charity, willing to pay for something (under threat of
>>>> prison) that the whole world can enjoy.
>>>
>>>Yeah, you are one of these people who would rather cut off
>>>your own nose to spite your face and do without these
>>>services, rather than stomach the idea of anyone else
>>>having a freebie. It doesn't matter that your own life is
>>>enriched by it, but then some people are just bitter and
>>>twisted eh ?
>>
>> Tell that to the single parent jailed because she couldnt
>> afford the licence fee.
>
>And if the rest of the world wasn't getting free DW then she
>wouldn't have been?
The rest of the world wouldnt get jailed - she did. Thats the
difference.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Well, she wouldn't have got jailed for watching DW on the
internet without a licence either.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:30:30 -0500,
> Wanderin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>2. Less people watching would mean the subscription fee +
>>change in taxes would be higher than the old license fee.
>
> Perhaps - but then the BBC would be supplying what was
> required, instead of a gaggle of game shows and a News
> channel no bugger watches.
The evidence of existing subscription channels is against you
there...
Doctor TOC
> licence fee.
So she can't afford the license fee but she can afford a TV (which, last
time I checked, wasn't compulsory). In jail, your hypothetical single mother
gets to watch TV without paying a license fee AND she gets free room and
board.
As for what you get out of it, you get access to all of the BBC's services,
including many that are completely unavailable to those not in the United
Kingdom. That's hardly zilch.
It's like software. Many companies offer a free version of their product
with limited capabilities. If you want the full-on version, you pay for it.
Since there's no practical way to limit who gets what within the UK (without
incurring huge costs to both the corporation and the user), folks within the
UK have their choices cut down to "TV" or "No TV."
It's not perfect, but what is?
Doctor TOC
Simon Watkins
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:30:30 -0500, Wanderin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> No, I just want choice. At the moment I have none.
>
Oh yes, the old "it's all about choice"
It amazes me why people pay Sky TV (which incidently prodcues next to zero
content itself) thirty odd quid a month for their channels and a few rip off
TV channels that consist of mainly former terrestrial productions repeated
ad infinitum, and then whinge about the (paltry in comparison) licence fee.
All about choice eh ?
Yes, that thirty odd quid per month is all about choice.
The fact that sports events like The Rider Cup were freely available on
terrestrial but now cost a fortune is also all about choice I suppose too ?
--
Simon
Old Joe
> what do I, a licence fee payer, get out of this?
The happiness from knowing that people world-wide are getting relatively
unbiased information and entertainment from your 50p a day?
If you wish you may take advantage of my tax dollars by accessing
www.abc.net.au and downloading podcasts and accessing streaming audio
from Radio National and JJJ (both highly recommended). There's also
news and video available and some items in the past have included Katy
Manning (for the DW connection).
It's stuff I've already paid for so if others can get benefit from it
well then I'm happy for them to do so.
Zygon Curry
<simonwre...@removethisntlworld.com> wrote:
>Oh yes, the old "it's all about choice"
>It amazes me why people pay Sky TV (which incidently prodcues next to zero
>content itself) thirty odd quid a month for their channels and a few rip off
>TV channels that consist of mainly former terrestrial productions repeated
>ad infinitum, and then whinge about the (paltry in comparison) licence fee.
I pay for the Sky package as well in our family in addition to the
License Fee. What do I tend to watch more? Pretty much BBC1 and 2 and
the occasional bit on BBC3/4 now and again. ITV and Five rarely if
ever get a look in. Occasionally watch Channel 4 if it's something I
like.
Also, having been to America and seen what passes for television over
there for the most part, I'm extremely glad we have the BBC.
I do however agree that access to BBC programming should be restricted
to the UK, unless sold to foreign broadcasters.
Paul Andrews
> Via the Internet:
>
> Radio 1
> Radio 2
> Radio 3
> Radio 4
> Radio 5 Live
> Radio 5 Sports Extra
> Radio 6 Music
> Radio 7
> Radio 1 Extra
> BBC Television News
> BBC News 24
> BBC Local News Broadband Content
> BBC Local Radio
>
> And putting it on topic:
>
> Doctor Who On Line (including webcast specials such as Shalka and
> Shada - 'broadcast quality')
> Children in Need Special Episode - near broadcast quality
Yes, the BBC is doing a great job - thank you BBC (from a UK licence payer)
> what do I, a licence fee payer, get out of this?
Well, you could access all this yourself...
> Zilch, bar an
> increase in the licence every year under threat of a prison sentence
> or a huge fine.
>
> Thanks BBC, you really do make my day. After all I am a charity,
> willing to pay for something (under threat of prison) that the whole
> world can enjoy.
That's one very big chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you can remove it by
selling your TV or do what the rest of us do - get on with your life.
I'm a licencepayer and tax payer and I'm more than happy with the BBC.
Paul
Martin Hoscik
>
> That's one very big chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you can remove it by
> selling your TV or do what the rest of us do - get on with your life.
Paul
Perhaps you could also do what the rest of us here do and abide by the
styleguide, including those parts that concern making personal remarks
to, and attacks on, other posters.
--
Martin Hoscik
RADWM Moderator
Paul Andrews
news:113352222...@iris.uk.clara.net...
OK, I'll apologise. I really didn't think it was that bad. Ah well.
Paul
News Admin
wrote:
Doesnt really matter though does it Martin, since its attacking me,
and I'm fair game, well at least according to the Moderators I am.
Banned again from rec.arts.drwho.moderated for a second successive year!
Lighthope
Thank you?
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - Can I be excused? My brain is full.
--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS: http://www.dwad.net
--== TIGERS' QUEST: http://www.tigersquest.com
--== Everlasting Films Call Board:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/everlastingfilms
Steve F
<ligh...@onepost.net> wrote:
>>The BBC Licence Fee Payer subsidises to the World....
>
>Thank you?
>
I dont think its funny myself.
Lighthope
Well, I kind of agree with you in a way. We here in the US support PBS
through our tax dollars, yet PBS is highly biased and caters only to
the smallest segment of population. I certainly obejct to my tax
dollars being wasted on PBS, yet if I withhold my taxes, you can bet
I'd be hauled off to jail as well.
OTOH, you also have to kinf of look at it in a give-and-take kind of
way.
You object to your forced licence fee (tax) being used to give away
free programming to overseas people. That's true. But your taxes also
pay for the roads I use while in the UK to which I did not contribute
to. I also take advantage of your sewer system, traffic, police and
fire, and a whole host of other things. I can also write to the UK
embassy here in the US for information and they'd send me a huge
package of stuff, all for free, courtesy of the people of the UK.
Fair?
Balancing things out, all that above also goes for you when you deal
with other countries. We can get even bigger and blow things really
out of proportion if we really wanted to stir things up. I don't
recall the UK ever writing a cheque to the United States for all the
stuff we did in WW I and II. Conversely, the UK has given a whole lot
of stuff for free to the US without even blinking, because we have that
kind of relationship.
Goin back to molehills from mountains, again I agree that forced
television taxes aren't right. If the BBC really put out good
programming, then it would be able to support itself without the need
to forcibly extort money from the public. (This is the exact argument
used to privatise PBS.) And yeah, I did get to enjoy Doctor Who
without contributing to the production since the BBC can't tax me.
Bottom line, I don't know what to do that would make it right. But let
me just say that I thank you, John Q. Public, for helping to create
such fine programming that I can enjoy. If I could help pay for it, I
would.
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - "There are no more rainbows for our kind anymore." -
Tiggra, the white tiger, when Man comes to his jungle. (Tigers' Quest)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> If the BBC really
> put out good programming, then it would be able to support
> itself without the need to forcibly extort money from the
> public.
Really?
The creators of Red Dwarf hawked the series around all the UK
independent channels, and not one of them took it up. It was
too much of a risk. After all, as Douglas Adams once pointed
out, their job is to provide audiences to advertisers, not
programmes to audiences. Therefore, they can't afford to risk
alienating some of their audience for a programme that might
blow another segment away. They have to play it safe.
If the BBC had been "supporting itself" in 1963, we'd be
sitting here talking about cookery programmes.
Lighthope
> independent channels, and not one of them took it up. It was
> too much of a risk.
I beleive that's more of an exception rather than a rule. I've seen a
lot of programming from the BBC and, IMHO, most of it is unwatchable
and I certainly wouldn't want to pay for it.
But I'm always willing to test people's theories.
If you believe that the Beeb plays such a vital role, then certainly
you must think it's worth more than the 50 bob or so that you have to
pay as a license fee. So go ahead and write a cheque out to the BBC
for what you feel is the actual value you place on the service the BBC
provides.
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into
jet engines.
Neil Sullivan
news:1133670720....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > The creators of Red Dwarf hawked the series around all the UK
> > independent channels, and not one of them took it up. It was
> > too much of a risk.
>
> I beleive that's more of an exception rather than a rule. I've seen a
> lot of programming from the BBC and, IMHO, most of it is unwatchable
> and I certainly wouldn't want to pay for it.
Well, we are of course into the realms of personal opinion now, but it seems
to me that virtually all the best programmes are coming out of the BBC at
the moment. There are a few really good imports on other channels (notably
Lost on Channel 4), but weigh that against the likes of Doctor Who, Spooks,
Shakespeare Re-told, Rome, Egypt, QI, Little Britain, Hustle, Life in the
Undergrowth, and the best thing on TV at the moment, Bleak House, and
there's no comparison.
And of course there was DW Confidential and there's Torchwood to come next
year (though I can't really cite that as an example of great TV without
having seen any of it yet, but I'm excited nonetheless!)
I don't know whether the BBC programmes you get in America are
representative? I've heard some who think that they're all DIY programmes...
Steve F
<ne...@nsullivan.force9.co.ukANDDELETETHISBIT> wrote:
>Little Britain
A nasty racist, sexist, ageist, particularly anti white but also black
programme. Yeah, great quality. Bring back Bernard Manning, at least
he's funny. But then I suppose the BBC likes anything 'anti white'
these days....
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:17:16 -0500, "Neil Sullivan"
> <ne...@nsullivan.force9.co.ukANDDELETETHISBIT> wrote:
>
>>Little Britain
>
> A nasty racist, sexist, ageist, particularly anti white but
> also black programme. Yeah, great quality. Bring back
> Bernard Manning, at least he's funny. But then I suppose
> the BBC likes anything 'anti white' these days....
I've never watched enough of it to decide if it's any of these
things, but I've watched enough to agree with Steve that it's
not funny. Although IMO neither's Bernard Manning.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>> The creators of Red Dwarf hawked the series around all the
>> UK independent channels, and not one of them took it up.
>> It was too much of a risk.
>
> I beleive that's more of an exception rather than a rule.
> I've seen a lot of programming from the BBC and, IMHO, most
> of it is unwatchable and I certainly wouldn't want to pay
> for it.
Sure. That's the thing about a channel that can afford to take
risks and is prepared to show programmes a lot of the audience
wouldn't be interested in because some of it is.
I can't for the life of me imagine who wanted to watch "One
Man And His Dog", for instance. But I'm glad they had the
oppertunity.
The trouble isn't the licence fee, it's that large segments of
the BBC seem to have forgotten what makes the licence fee
important. They worry about ratings, forgetting that that's a
commercial television problem, their job is purely to make
quality television. This is why so much of the Beeb's output
these days is "Changing Rooms" under different names, because
it's a "proven commodity".
Will
> Via the Internet:
>
> Radio 1
> Radio 2
> Radio 3
> Radio 4
> Radio 5 Live
> Radio 5 Sports Extra
> Radio 6 Music
> Radio 7
> Radio 1 Extra
> BBC Television News
> BBC News 24
> BBC Local News Broadband Content
> BBC Local Radio
>
> And putting it on topic:
>
> Doctor Who On Line (including webcast specials such as Shalka and
> Shada - 'broadcast quality')
> Children in Need Special Episode - near broadcast quality
>
> increase in the licence every year under threat of a prison sentence
> or a huge fine.
>
You also, via your taxes, pay for prisons you might never live in, roads
in the Shetland Islands you might never drive on, preservation of
historical buildings whether or not you look at them, diplomats who deal
with governments of countries whether or not you visit them, etc. etc.
etc. The UK is not a completely unregulated user-pays anarchy, but a
modern somewhat regulated society.
The *national* benefits include the BBC pioneering digital broadcasting
(including internet and freeview) in order to drive adoption of these
technologies in the UK (this *is* part of their remit and a required
part of their charter agreement obligations), the promotion of Britain
and British values abroad (which is important enough that they also run
a BBC World Service as well as allowing foreigners to view a subset of
our domestic content via the internet), promoting BBC programming abroad
which can help get programme sales and bring in revenue... All for the
cost of a small bit of bandwitdth, which thanks to the BBC's particular
peering arrangements doesn't actually cost them anything.
If you disagree, write to the BBC governors, but please stop continually
whinging here.
Steve F
>You also, via your taxes, pay for prisons you might never live in, roads
>in the Shetland Islands you might never drive on, preservation of
>historical buildings whether or not you look at them, diplomats who deal
>with governments of countries whether or not you visit them, etc. etc.
>etc. The UK is not a completely unregulated user-pays anarchy, but a
>modern somewhat regulated society.
Not the point and you know it.
>The *national* benefits include the BBC pioneering digital broadcasting
>(including internet and freeview)
On my licence, nowhere does it say that as part of the fee it gives
the BBC the right to fiddle with technology so that it can then give
out it's output to a worldwide audience for nothing.
Not small amount of bandwidth when the BBC decides to give BBC1, 2, 3
and 4 out to the world for nothing.
The Doctor
subscription fee to its site for listening to its radio stations
and view its TV stations live off the web?
I know I would be willing to pay.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada : Consider carefully whom to vote for on 23 Jan 2006, I choose Liberal!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Will
>>The creators of Red Dwarf hawked the series around all the UK
>>independent channels, and not one of them took it up. It was
>>too much of a risk.
>
>
> I beleive that's more of an exception rather than a rule. I've seen a
> lot of programming from the BBC and, IMHO, most of it is unwatchable
> and I certainly wouldn't want to pay for it.
>
You might want to compare the quality of programming and the per-viewer
cost of the BBC and Sky or ntl or any of the subscription channels.
(The license fee is a bit less than half the cost of the cheapest
package) Suddenly the BBC looks like an incredible bargain, even before
you take into account the radio, the Proms, the BBC's broadcasting
technology research labs, maintenaning the transmitter network, managing
and allowing the transition to digital tv in this country, it's
particular importance to training British directing and production
talent, the BBC's online news service, and its role in raising the
profile of Britain abroad.
Andy Leighton
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> Here is a question: Will the BBC impose a
> subscription fee to its site for listening to its radio stations
> and view its TV stations live off the web?
For their TV programmes I doubt they will have a subscription model.
I would guess that the modern programmes will be restricted to UK IP
addresses (like the recent trial, which included a few Doctor Who episodes,
after they corrected their mistake). The BBC would still like to sell their
programmes abroad and a worldwide subscription model might make that more
difficult.
For most of the radio content I see no reason why they would change
the current setup.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
News Admin
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>For most of the radio content I see no reason why they would change
>the current setup.
Which is to have the British to subsidise a worldwide audience - not
in the licence fee payers remit and one that could possibly be
challenged in court (cf TV licence pressure groups).
Lighthope
> cost of the BBC and Sky or ntl or any of the subscription channels.
> (The license fee is a bit less than half the cost of the cheapest
> package) Suddenly the BBC looks like an incredible bargain
IS it really that much of a bargain? Is the BBC fully supported by
license fees (in which it may be a bargian) or does the Beeb get
additional funds from the goverment (via taxes, thus making the bargain
quite expensive)? Kind of like Canada's "free" medical care which is
in fact very expensive)
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
News Admin <ne...@news.demon.net> wrote:
>
>Which is to have the British to subsidise a worldwide audience - not
>in the licence fee payers remit and one that could possibly be
>challenged in court (cf TV licence pressure groups).
So? Isn't this true for most countries? CBC Radio is available
around the world on the Internet, and has been for years. But the
cost is being paid by Canadian taxpayers. What about ABC? I used
to live in Indonesia, and listed to ABC on shortwave all the time,
but never paid a cent.
What about all those horrible Americans in Seattle, Detroit and
Buffalo, who are watching Doctor Who on CBC! Someone should put
up some kind of barrier at the border so the Americans are getting
these freebies! :-)
A
Nick
Andy Leighton
>> You might want to compare the quality of programming and the per-viewer
>> cost of the BBC and Sky or ntl or any of the subscription channels.
>> (The license fee is a bit less than half the cost of the cheapest
>> package) Suddenly the BBC looks like an incredible bargain
>
> IS it really that much of a bargain? Is the BBC fully supported by
> license fees (in which it may be a bargian) or does the Beeb get
> additional funds from the goverment (via taxes, thus making the bargain
> quite expensive)? Kind of like Canada's "free" medical care which is
> in fact very expensive)
The Foreign Office pays for the BBC World Service. All other TV, Radio,
and Internet content have no government funding. The TV Licence raises
around 2.8 billion pounds (after collection costs). BBC Commercial
businesses put around 150 million back into the coffers for programming
and broadcast.
The BBC publishes its annual report online so you can see the figures in
detail if you wish.