New Package That Requires NO TV Licence

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Tomthecatty wrote:

I'm merely pointing out that the BBC broadcasts around the world are generally accepted whilst other country's broadcasts are only allowed if they fit in with a certain point of view. 

---

Any nation could choose to set up short-wave broadcasting to transmit its own content around the world: they just mostly don't bother.  'Allowed' is different: that's regulation of licenced distribution into regulated listings within a particular country, which basically doesn't apply to radio anyway except where it's radio content by satellite reception.

[rscott]

---

@Tomthecatty wrote:

To be fair that's exactly what the UK did to Russia Today. 

To be clear, I'm in no way condoning Russia's deplorable actions in Ukraine, I'm merely pointing out that the BBC broadcasts around the world are generally accepted whilst other country's broadcasts are only allowed if they fit in with a certain point of view. 

---

Didn't the EU shut down the uplink from Luxembourg, so there was no way for RT to actually broadcast?

[TimmyBGood]

@rscott 

Yes, and as SES is headquartered there it would break the embargo to use Astra from another uplink outside the EU even if that were technically feasible.  Ofcom revoking RTs licence came a couple of weeks later.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/03/02/eu-imposes-sanctions-on-state-own... 

1. It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed.

2.   Any broadcasting licence or authorisation, transmission and distribution arrangement with the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV shall be suspended.’;

[xenon81]

---

@rscott wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

@Mark39 wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

.

---

IMHO, BBC has a lot of resources that they don't actually need and can do away with

---

I suspect the BBC knows rather more about their business than you do....

---

As long as BBC is getting our money, they can have as many services as they can afford. What I'd like to know is what would BBC drop if the license fee was dropped.

---

They'd have to focus on the content which attracted the greatest advertising advertising revenue - so BBC4 would be dropped, along with a lot of the less popular, but very interesting content on the other BBC channels. Local radio would either have to accept advertising, or close, which would have a big impact on sections of the community.

Of course, if the BBC started attracting the big name advertisers, especially in shows like Strictly, that would have a negative impact on all the other commercial channels, reducing their revenue and ability to supply content.

---

So true and very often overlooked by those who take the simplistic "the BBC should show adverts" view.

Advertising money isn't unlimited and if companies split their advertising budget between the BBC and exiting commercial media, both would suffer greatly and many smaller channels would close.

It's no good saying "ITV would have to make better programmes" - they wouldn't be able to afford them, even if they wanted to, as their revenue would be slashed overnight.

[Annie+UK]

Why should the BBC get over 3.2 Billion a year and also insist we pay this to them for watching non-BBC channels, you don't shop in Salisbury's and then get Tesco demanding payment 🙄

The BBC already have commercial arms of their corp and have adverts on UKTV that they own as well as other places

Competition is always a good thing for the customer and the BBC have had a FREE ride for far too long

ITV already suffer from losing live viewers that refuse to pay the BBC Tax, maybe they'll get some back when the Tax goes the way of the dinosaurs

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

Why should the BBC get over 3.2 Billion a year and also insist we pay this to them for watching non-BBC channels, you don't shop in Salisbury's and then get Tesco demanding payment 🙄

---

Because Tesco don't have a Royal Charter dating from before almost anyone now alive was born saying they can do so?

Actually Tesco is technically older than the Beeb, but I suspect Winston Churchill didn't shop at Mr Cohen's stall in Hackney Market ; )

(and Sainsbury's is way older)

[LGUser]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

What's the point of BBC broadcasting BBC News on BBC 1 and BBC 2 when there is the BBC News channel?

---

a) the 'point' is the Public Service remit dating back to the 1926 General Strike when newspaper production was impacted: the BBC was created to provide news.

b) as far as I'm aware the 'main' news segments on BBC1 are the BBC News channel output anyway

No-one's arguing the Beeb isn't a horribly bloated beast: that's a product of its unique history.  The risk is that messing with the funding mechanism kills the bits of that uniqueness which are actually irreplaceable.

---

I'm talking about when BBC runs the exact same content on BBC 1 & BBC2 as they are on BBC News.

BBC1  duplicates the news at 1:30am-6am. BBC2 duplicates the news from 9am-12:15pm. So BBC are paying the cost to duplicate the news almost 8 hours a day. It would be better for BBC to shut down BBC1 & BBC2 during those times instead of broadcasting the same exact news as they do on BBC News. I don't know of any platform that has BBC1 & BBC2 and does not have BBC News.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

---

I'm talking about when BBC runs the exact same content on BBC 1 & BBC2 as they are on BBC News.

---

But if that's a simultaneous broadcast, the marginal extra cost is just the satellite data transit fee.

[LGUser]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

---

I'm talking about when BBC runs the exact same content on BBC 1 & BBC2 as they are on BBC News.

---

But if that's a simultaneous broadcast, the marginal extra cost is just the satellite data transit fee.

---

But it's still money spent that does not need to be spent.

Another thing I'd like to know is how much money would BBC need if they got rid of all the excess they they waste?

[TimmyBGood]

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

---

But it's still money spent that does not need to be spent.

---

Quite possibly, but a negligible amount that I suspect they'd argue is far outweighed by the familiarity of the BBC1 brand continuing through the night.

[LGUser]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

---

But it's still money spent that does not need to be spent.

---

Quite possibly, but a negligible amount that I suspect they'd argue is far outweighed by the familiarity of the BBC1 brand continuing through the night.

---

BBC can come up with all the excuses they want. It's still a wastye of money that doesn't need to be spent.

[lettice]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

Why should the BBC get over 3.2 Billion a year and also insist we pay this to them for watching non-BBC channels, you don't shop in Salisbury's and then get Tesco demanding payment 🙄

The BBC already have commercial arms of their corp and have adverts on UKTV that they own as well as other places

Competition is always a good thing for the customer and the BBC have had a FREE ride for far too long

---

Totally agree.

France is removing their license fee this year.

Lets hope we do the same soon.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@lettice wrote:

---

France is removing their license fee this year.

---

Of course that's always possible if a government wills it: public service broadcasting can be paid for out of general taxation, or a surcharge on every broadband subscription, or a percentage added to all electricity bills...

How these are any 'fairer' than a licence fee escapes me, though.  Either statutory PSB is a 'good thing' for a country to have, in which case the wider population gets to pay for it in one way or another whether they use it or not (like many other services supposedly 'for the public good'), or it isn't and this or another government gets to kill it off.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20220308/macron-promises-to-axe-frances-tv-licence-if-he-is-re-elected/ 

[rscott]

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

---

But it's still money spent that does not need to be spent.

---

Quite possibly, but a negligible amount that I suspect they'd argue is far outweighed by the familiarity of the BBC1 brand continuing through the night.

---

BBC can come up with all the excuses they want. It's still a wastye of money that doesn't need to be spent.

---

It may well not be any cheaper to shut down those 2 channels - discounts can be available on the bandwidth when committing to 24x7 usage.

[LGUser]

---

@rscott wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

---

But it's still money spent that does not need to be spent.

---

Quite possibly, but a negligible amount that I suspect they'd argue is far outweighed by the familiarity of the BBC1 brand continuing through the night.

---

BBC can come up with all the excuses they want. It's still a wastye of money that doesn't need to be spent.

---

It may well not be any cheaper to shut down those 2 channels - discounts can be available on the bandwidth when committing to 24x7 usage.

---

If BBC should stop the news and at least run other programs. Even if they are older programs. It would be better then hacving two streams of the same news.