ITV to create Pay Per View Channels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Here we go again, playing the racism card are we?

No, quite frankly i'm not bound to a party like many on here are (why you are bringing UKIP up now I do not understand, I'll hazard a guess that its because you have nothing better to reply with to my points about the BBC) and so far, UKIP have proven to stick by their promises and have acted accordingly to my liking over any fraud that goes on within the party (as all parties have). When UKIP start acting in a way that I do not like/changes in policies I do not like then I will drop them like a sack of spuds, just as I did with the Conservative Party.

Instead of trying to turn it into a UKIP argument, kindly repond to my points about the BBC - thanks.

The BBC does have a monopoly. Do you not understand that if something is funded by compulsory legislation which means it cannot ever go bust while its rivals dont have that advantage that it does have a monopoly over its rivals? - I shall bring up the point again right, you say that it is the only broadcaster which can produce quality shows, so if that is the case and you are correct then why would privatising be such a disaster?

If its as great as you all claim then it wouldnt have a problem in selling itself, or are you not telling the full truth as I suspect hence why you are so afraid of it becoming privatised.

The license fee is provided by compulsory government legislation and the corportation is government owned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...t-1488585.html

Channel 4 is struggling. In 2007 according to that one source, it had to go to the government cap in hand just to keep going. The problems with Channel 4 and ITV have been well-publicised over the past few years.

If that is what people want then thats the simple factor called supply and demand.

Not 'perhaps', its common sense. If private the BBC would not be able to afford to waste money like it does so now.

So why should Joe be forced to pay for something so trivial as television when he does not even want to watch it?

The same BBC trust which spent £3.2 million of taxpayer money on renovating a building in which only 45 people work in?

Anyway, whats wrong with Ofcom regulating the BBC like it regulates the rest of the broadcasting sector? - it'd save a hell of a lot of cash for the taxpayer as well.

No i'm afraid that is it the commercial sector which is suffering because of the BBC and its salaries, struggling ITV, Channel 4 and others have to pull more money out of their tight funds just to compete with the BBC in this sector because the BBC does not have money concerns, it gets it all from state 'theft' of the taxpayer.

The BBC is not cheaper than alternatives, Sky and Virgin offer various packages which come much cheaper than the license fee. To add to that, if the BBC is already cheaper then whats wrong with it becoming private?

You say its popular.
You say its cheaper than rivals.

So whats so worrying about it becoming private?

---

Quote:

---

So in conclusion judging by that top phrase you cannot say much more on the topic and now personally attack me, well not that I care much because it shows up you and not me. The government (this government) would like to charge for something else you are right, but lets consider for a moment if we didnt have a corrupt government which likes nothing better than taking your money away from you.

---

That is why I bought UKIP into it :l You were hinting - don't deny it

Aw, I would'nt want to pay for them. ITV2 is good though the other ones are **.

I quite like how this thread has gone from ITV to BBC to Economy to ITV to UKIP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I'm only repeating what you said about me being a MP/PM, infact it was your brainchild. Back to the topic itself;

The moves made by ITV are very closely linked with the BBC;- Channel 4 and ITV were close to collapse only a few months ago because of the stranglehold the BBC has on the market. If ITV and Channel 4 are to survive as competitive channels then they will have to privatise the BBC. ITV has tried and attempted many schemes such as this and buyouts many of which have ended in disaster (did they not buy out cable a while ago?) and this could be another one of them. ITV has managed to stay afloat like any other business by cutting back on its waste and spending, meanwhile the BBC spends millions on executives, non-jobs and total waste of money. If the main issue isnt sorted out then you will eventually see ITV go under along with Channel 4 (which would be a great shame especially with Channel 4 and its E4 channels).

---

Well ITV has many channels. Why not concentrate on 2 instead of having 5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I did read what you said, you should be asking yourself 'do I understand his very simple points, especially as I claim to be a guru at business' - so let me explain. If the BBC is genuinely (as you say) offering so many popular services then why would it not make a profit. Could it perhaps be the fact that a lot of its services have little demand and and/are a total waste of money?

---

I wonder if you live in a different planet? Anyone who says BBC's services have little demand is foolish. They started iPlayer and the online TV market in the U.K. If they hadn't spent millions developing the iPlayer, ITV, Channel 4 etc wouldn't have either. Statistics clearly show iPlayer is extremely popular and is continuing to grow.

Secondly, BBC is independent. They don't provide biased news and don't support any government which is essential.

Ditch ITV3 and 4 and make a sports channel and a movies channel.

Quote:

---

because the BBC produces many minority programming that would not be able to survive on advertising alone. if the bbc doesn't produce quality shows than why are the other stations you claim 'struggling'? Maybe it's because they are useless.

---

If there is little demand for them then they are not economically viable and thus should not be funded by a compulsory stealth tax on the people of this country.

Quote:

---

the first bit is true but the second part isn't. The government doesn't own the BBC, it is an entity by itself.

---

The BBC is owned by the government, it is a government organisation and we wouldnt be having this discussion if it was a private business like you are now claiming it to be.

Quote:

---

channel 4 was originally set up the government as a PSB so tbh asking the government for help isn't as odd as it seems.

---

So you now accept that it is struggling and you didnt actually know what you were talking about, good.

Quote:

---

it's called the lowest common denominator.

---

Supply and demand, what every other business has to run by.

Quote:

---

if he doesn't watch TV, why does he have a TV license.

---

Or maybe he thinks what the BBC runs is not of interest to him and that he has to pay the tv license because he has no other choice because it is compulsory and not optional.

Quote:

---

the same bbc trust that has stopped the bbc from doing certain things which attack competitors, yes.

---

..yet they dont see the elephant in the room which is that competitiors (if you can call them that) are struggling because of the monopoly on the market that the BBC has.

Quote:

---

how would it save money? where do you think ofcom gets its money from?

---

Because rather than the BBC Trust and goodness knows how many other departments/non-jobs the BBC has conjuired up to employ people and thus extend its power, Ofcom would regulate the BBC rather than the BBC Trust which is another body for more government waste.

Quote:

---

where's this magic package from sky or virgin which is cheaper than the TV license?

---

Look back a few pages, we've cleared that issue already with various links from Sky and Virgin.

Quote:

---

because the bbc isn't broke so why fix it? it's not just the bbc which gets money from the TVL, the digital switch over and the like are all paid for by the TVL too, which all tv stations benefit from. plus the countless R&D the bbc have been responsible for.

---

The BBC is broke both in its methods and ways, and if its doing such an amazing job as you claim then what is the problem with it becoming private?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Android

That is why I bought UKIP into it :l You were hinting - don't deny it

---

Because I believe there are people and parties out there who can sort this country out and stop the enormous amounts of waste we have to put up with, I prefer to have some optimism rather than voting like a zombie for the three main parties who stand for exactly the same as eachother on nearly every issue. Now please respond to my post about the BBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

I wonder if you live in a different planet? Anyone who says BBC's services have little demand is foolish. They started iPlayer and the online TV market in the U.K. If they hadn't spent millions developing the iPlayer, ITV, Channel 4 etc wouldn't have either. Statistics clearly show iPlayer is extremely popular and is continuing to grow.

Secondly, BBC is independent. They don't provide biased news and don't support any government which is essential.

---

Ok then, you say its got a lot of demand like alex and others here. So I will now ask you; why is the BBC becoming private such a problem if the BBC has such great demand? - On the second point; all news broadcasters have to remain neutral as it conforms to the regulations so it makes little difference, although you are wrong when you say the BBC is 'independant' because it depends on the government to finance its vast services, with a lot of waste may I add.

I wonder what planet you are living on.

Theres another can of fish also with the 'non-biased' way the BBC operates which what many people remember was a very pro-Labour organisation and which took an anti-Thatcher tone in the 1980s and even today (as shown by the BBCs change of format to BBC Question Time when Nick Griffin was on) the BBC still has many questions to answer, personally I find the reporting of most of the broadcasters very one sided in favour of the left; pro-climate change, pro-mass immigration and so forth but thats for another day.

I would rather vote for the 3 main parties, that at the very least have experience, rather than a party with NO experience, and has just as lame promises as the other parties.

Also Dan you are fighting yourself too.. Why is there any problems with the BBC not being privatised? We have already released they will just charge us £100 for something else.. and clearly there is only a minor part of Britain that are so damned ignorant to believe UKIP would stop it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If there is little demand for them then they are not economically viable and thus should not be funded by a compulsory stealth tax on the people of this country.

The BBC is owned by the government, it is a government organisation and we wouldnt be having this discussion if it was a private business like you are now claiming it to be.

So you now accept that it is struggling and you didnt actually know what you were talking about, good.

Supply and demand, what every other business has to run by.

Or maybe he thinks what the BBC runs is not of interest to him and that he has to pay the tv license because he has no other choice because it is compulsory and not optional.

..yet they dont see the elephant in the room which is that competitiors (if you can call them that) are struggling because of the monopoly on the market that the BBC has.

Because rather than the BBC Trust and goodness knows how many other departments/non-jobs the BBC has conjuired up to employ people and thus extend its power, Ofcom would regulate the BBC rather than the BBC Trust which is another body for more government waste.

Look back a few pages, we've cleared that issue already with various links from Sky and Virgin.

The BBC is broke both in its methods and ways, and if its doing such an amazing job as you claim then what is the problem with it becoming private?



Because I believe there are people and parties out there who can sort this country out and stop the enormous amounts of waste we have to put up with, I prefer to have some optimism rather than voting like a zombie for the three main parties who stand for exactly the same as eachother on nearly every issue. Now please respond to my post about the BBC.



Ok then, you say its got a lot of demand like alex and others here. So I will now ask you; why is the BBC becoming private such a problem if the BBC has such great demand? - On the second point; all news broadcasters have to remain neutral as it conforms to the regulations so it makes little difference, although you are wrong when you say the BBC is 'independant' because it depends on the government to finance its vast services, with a lot of waste may I add.

I wonder what planet you are living on.

Theres another can of fish also with the 'non-biased' way the BBC operates which what many people remember was a very pro-Labour organisation and which took an anti-Thatcher tone in the 1980s and even today (as shown by the BBCs change of format to BBC Question Time when Nick Griffin was on) the BBC still has many questions to answer, personally I find the reporting of most of the broadcasters very one sided in favour of the left; pro-climate change, pro-mass immigration and so forth but thats for another day.

---

Do you really think (in the current economic climate) people will PAY to watch more TV? No. BBC is funded by the government yes, but they have to remain impartial. Although they always arent, its more than other news channels.
If BBC was privatised, it would be 4 men controlling the news we get. However BBC tries to show unbiased news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

... I wonder if you live in a different planet? Anyone who says BBC's services have little demand is foolish. They started iPlayer and the online TV market in the U.K. If they hadn't spent millions developing the iPlayer, ITV, Channel 4 etc wouldn't have either. Statistics clearly show iPlayer is extremely popular and is continuing to grow.

Secondly, BBC is independent. They don't provide biased news and don't support any government which is essential.

---

To be fair that kind of contradicts itself. iPlayer is for watching stuff you've missed on TV or radio so it can only really be popular if many people aren't watching the TV or listening to the radio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Android

I would rather vote for the 3 main parties, that at the very least have experience, rather than a party with NO experience, and has just as lame promises as the other parties.

Also Dan you are fighting yourself too.. Why is there any problems with the BBC not being privatised? We have already released they will just charge us £100 for something else.. and clearly there is only a minor part of Britain that are so damned ignorant to believe UKIP would stop it all.

---

If you would rather carry on voting for the main parties which have next to none policies which represent the people in this country then please do so, but just dont moan when your denied a referendum on Europe, dont moan when your taxes are going through the roof, dont moan when we have criminals/militant extremists coming here and preaching hatred while we're paying for them to do so, dont moan when your working your socks off to fund criminals/benefit scroungers, dont moan when criminals are let out early and re-commit crime, dont moan when 'we havent got enough money' for older generations who need care & expensive drugs on the NHS which extend peoples lives while we give billions to the EU and others countries such as India and China and theres much much more.

I actually believe UKIP because if you look at its history since the early 1990s when it was first set up, it has always been a grassroots party. Nigel Farage was a former stockbroker who got involved because he wanted to halt the ever-powerful EU and its influence over the business sector in this country which has now extended to nearly every aspect of life in the United Kingdom. The same can be said for Lord Pearson who also has experience in business and defected from the Conservatives because they no longer represent what most people in this country want. Now lets take the main parties people for example; most of them have never had a 'real' job before - most were either parachuted in [career politicians as they are known] or have always worked for the state and thus dont know the meaning of business and how a business is run. If you are happy with this country at the moment and think that the people running it are competant then vote for them, if not then vote for someone who actually wants to change this country for the better. It doesnt have to be UKIP as there are many many other parties out there who mean what they say, just whatever you do dont carry on voting for the same corrupt liers who are only in it for themselves and always have been.

What are the problems with the BBC not being privatised?

• You are not giving people that choice to choose what television they want to watch.
• You are charging people who do not want to watch the BBC [stealth tax]
• The BBC overspends and continuously raises its prices which outstrip rival broadcasters.
• The BBC is harming other broadcasters such as ITV/Channel4 because of the monopoly it holds.
• The BBC is immensely wasteful and greedy and creates 'non-jobs' weekly thus a bigger burden.
• A family who does not like the BBC could do more with £145 and afterall it is their own money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dander

Do you really think (in the current economic climate) people will PAY to watch more TV? No. BBC is funded by the government yes, but they have to remain impartial. Although they always arent, its more than other news channels. If BBC was privatised, it would be 4 men controlling the news we get. However BBC tries to show unbiased news.

---

Of course they will, just it means you are giving them the choice. It is pretty simple so do let me explain;

A family wants a Sky package which lets say costs £60 per year. Without the license fee they would only have to pay that £60 whereas for instance now, they would be forced to pay for the BBC services which cost £145 per year despite the fact they may not want to watch the BBC. So rather than paying £60 per year for their television services, they end up having to pay £205 per year despite the fact they do not have any interest in the BBC and do not watch/use any of its services/channels.

Again you go on the biased route, I do not know how to make this anymore clearer; all broadcasters are bound to regulations and rules which state they are not allowed to be biased. Whether the BBC was private or not, it has to remain neutral and un-biased. Therefore it makes no difference in that aspect whether or not the BBC is private or owned by the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi

To be fair that kind of contradicts itself. iPlayer is for watching stuff you've missed on TV or radio so it can only really be popular if many people aren't watching the TV or listening to the radio.

---

Not necessarily missed. But the fact that they watch it online means BBC's programmes are in demand. I will reply to UT later.