ITV to create Pay Per View Channels

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because in your post you were quoting Virgin Media @ £5,50 pm not Sky - that could be the reason? Sky is a minimum of £16.00 per month?

My mistake then; so still Virgin is a service which costs far less and has a service with more choice. So whats wrong with people deciding themselves whether they want to pay for the cheapest option (Virgin TV) or the second cheaspest option (Sky) or the most expensive option which is the BBC? - I just dont see for the life of me the issue with allowing to choose what television they wish to pay for and watch.

[Catzsy]

My mistake then; so still Virgin is a service which costs far less and has a service with more choice. So whats wrong with people deciding themselves whether they want to pay for the cheapest option (Virgin TV) or the second cheaspest option (Sky) or the most expensive option which is the BBC? - I just dont see for the life of me the issue with allowing to choose what television they wish to pay for and watch.

Because the BBC isn't the most expensive option and I believe that it has high quality programming including all the educational programming that would be lost if it was privatised. What are the advantages of privatisation? All I can see is that the others would put up their prices and we would have to pay more for the BBC as well as then it would not be a 'not for profit' organisation. You are right to suggest we get value for money though and the BBC is having a radical overhall of it's spending. It is not just the BBC that get taxpayers money it is also Channel 4 and the Welsh Channel S4C - now that needs looking at as it costs the taxpayer 100million a year with average audiences of 10,000.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because the BBC isn't the most expensive option and I believe that it has high quality programming including all the educational programming that would be lost if it was privatised. What are the advantages of privatisation? All I can see is that the others would put up their prices and we would have to pay more for the BBC as well as then it would not be a 'not for profit' organisation. You are right to suggest we get value for money though and the BBC is having a radical overhall of it's spending. It is not just the BBC that get taxpayers money it is also Channel 4 and the Welsh Channel S4C - now that needs looking at as it costs the taxpayer 100million a year with average audiences of 10,000.

The BBC is the most expensive option and its compulsory, you are not giving people the choice. You asked for the advantages of privatisation and I shall give you them while at the same time telling you that privatisation would not mean a rise in all broadcasting because that is total rubbish and goes against market forces and common sense. Privatisation would sort out the following issues;

• The BBC would lose its monopoly on the market (good for investment)
• The BBC would be constricted to its own budget rather than having its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer (the Treasury in other words).
• Rival, struggling broadcasters such as Channel 4 would be allowed to compete fairly with the BBC.
• More choice would arise as investment in broadcasting would open up a whole new industry.
• The rivalling from other broadcasters would make the BBC get ontop of its game and make it more efficent.
• The audience, job public would be able to pick his choice of television rather than having the government do it for him.
• The BBC would be forced to become more efficent because not only would they be eligable to scrutiny by the public who could easily stop paying into their service, they would have to work with the constraintes of a budget like any other business has to.
• The BBC would certainly not be able to afford to keep paying 55 top executives more than the British Prime Minister.
• Broadcasting would become cheaper as their would be more rivallry which would force the BBC down to the same prices as Sky and Virgin, possibly with all becoming even cheaper.

As for the BBCs radical overhaul i'm afraid there is nothing radical at all. If you watched Jeff Randalls interview with Mark Thompson he couldnt even provide basic figures on what he was cutting. The BBC has made no pledges to cut spending, no cuts to the executive higherarchy of the company and no pledges to cut non-jobs with names such as 'BBC director of creativity and racial cohesion' (very similar examples out there with names such as that). Now what I cant understand (still) is why you are so against people being able to choose their own broadcaster and the television they watch - what is so wrong with that concept?

[Catzsy]

Why do you keep saying 'you'. It's not just me. It only costs the taxpayer per household £142 per year - this is hardly a huge expense. There is no way that we would not be charged more if it was privatised. The flood gates would open for more subscription TV and there would be no more free to air I would suggest as it is the BBC that keeps that at bay. It is not a monopoly as they are not the only broadcasting company in the UK. If it was privatised why would it attract more investment? Shareholders require profits. I imagine Rupert Murdoch would love to see the end of the BBC but 77% of the British population wouldn't. You are just against the idea of state funded anything by the sound of it whether it be the BBC or any other body.

[AgnesIO]

Dan you make out as if you know ******* everything, about everything to do with money, politics, and all else on earth.

Let me make this clear to you: If the government REMOVED the BBC License Fee, then they WOULD, whether you like it or not, charge for something else.

Nobody would be saving money, as they would still charge.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why do you keep saying 'you'. It's not just me. It only costs the taxpayer per household £142 per year - this is hardly a huge expense. There is no way that we would not be charged more if it was privatised. The flood gates would open for more subscription TV and there would be no more free to air I would suggest as it is the BBC that keeps that at bay. It is not a monopoly as they are not the only broadcasting company in the UK. If it was privatised why would it attract more investment? Shareholders require profits. I imagine Rupert Murdoch would love to see the end of the BBC but 77% of the British population wouldn't. You are just against the idea of state funded anything by the sound of it whether it be the BBC or any other body.

It is a huge expense for families which struggle onwards every year with hikes in taxation to pay for more complete and utter waste, bills rising and rising due to taxation, business leaving the country while over 8 million of working age do not work - i'm afraid £142 is a lot of money that a lot of families would much rather have in their pockets than in the pockets of a totally wasteful organisation which could not run an ice cream van if it attempted to do so. If the best you can do by justifying the charge is 'well its not that much anyway' then I think that speaks for itself.

I did not say you would be charged more if it was privatised, quite the opposite. The price would be forced down because of rivals such as Sky and Virgin Media already offering bigger and more optional packets as we speak for a fraction of the compulsory BBC price. The BBC do have a monopoly because unlike the other broadcasters they are not a company which (like most other companies) has to manage itself in the best possible way to survive. The BBC can raise the license fee when it wishes with consent from government and it has (come worst case scenario) Treasury backing - no other broadcaster has this.

The BBC would attract more investment and television in general would because it would mean that broadcasters who sturggle at the moment (ITV and Channel 4) would be able to compete on a fair and level playing field with the BBC whereas at the moment they cannot do so because of the monopoly the BBC has on the fields that it is in. You say 77% of the British population, well how about letting a family/an individual decide where their money is best spent regarding television than executives and ministers on £100k+ per year (and whose wages depend on that very system).

A family/an individual knows how best to spend their own money, not the state.

Dan you make out as if you know ******* everything, about everything to do with money, politics, and all else on earth.

Let me make this clear to you: If the government REMOVED the BBC License Fee, then they WOULD, whether you like it or not, charge for something else.

Nobody would be saving money, as they would still charge.

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.

Just imagine that.

[AgnesIO]

It is a huge expense for families which struggle onwards every year with hikes in taxation to pay for more complete and utter waste, bills rising and rising due to taxation, business leaving the country while over 8 million of working age do not work - i'm afraid £142 is a lot of money that a lot of families would much rather have in their pockets than in the pockets of a totally wasteful organisation which could not run an ice cream van if it attempted to do so. If the best you can do by justifying the charge is 'well its not that much anyway' then I think that speaks for itself.

I did not say you would be charged more if it was privatised, quite the opposite. The price would be forced down because of rivals such as Sky and Virgin Media already offering bigger and more optional packets as we speak for a fraction of the compulsory BBC price. The BBC do have a monopoly because unlike the other broadcasters they are not a company which (like most other companies) has to manage itself in the best possible way to survive. The BBC can raise the license fee when it wishes with consent from government and it has (come worst case scenario) Treasury backing - no other broadcaster has this.

The BBC would attract more investment and television in general would because it would mean that broadcasters who sturggle at the moment (ITV and Channel 4) would be able to compete on a fair and level playing field with the BBC whereas at the moment they cannot do so because of the monopoly the BBC has on the fields that it is in. You say 77% of the British population, well how about letting a family/an individual decide where their money is best spent regarding television than executives and ministers on £100k+ per year (and whose wages depend on that very system).

A family/an individual knows how best to spend their own money, not the state.



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.

Just imagine that.

I love how your head seems to think UKIP wouldn't be just as corrupt as the other parties. If only you realised that.

The Nazi got in because people though they were heros. You think that about UKIP.

[alexxxxx]

The BBC is the most expensive option and its compulsory, you are not giving people the choice. You asked for the advantages of privatisation and I shall give you them while at the same time telling you that privatisation would not mean a rise in all broadcasting because that is total rubbish and goes against market forces and common sense. Privatisation would sort out the following issues;

• The BBC would lose its monopoly on the market (good for investment)

the bbc does not have a monopoly, it's the fact that in today's multi-channel world, the BBC is the only broadcaster that can actually produce quality shows. We have a problem in this country that producing quality shows costs alot of money at a small audience, this wouldn't change with privatisation - all we'll get is US imports.

• The BBC would be constricted to its own budget rather than having its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer (the Treasury in other words).

Saying the BBC gets money from the government is a very serious allegation as it has implications on its impartiality. Can you please link me to some evidence.

• Rival, struggling broadcasters such as Channel 4 would be allowed to compete fairly with the BBC.

I don't believe Channel 4 is struggling, infact in certain sectors, like young people, channel 4 is incredibly more popular than the BBC.

• More choice would arise as investment in broadcasting would open up a whole new industry.

i seriously doubt more choice will errupt from the privatisation from the BBC. I suspect more populist programming and we'll get more shows such as Britain's Got Talent and boring, formulaic american dramas.

• The rivalling from other broadcasters would make the BBC get ontop of its game and make it more efficent.

perhaps.

• The audience, job public would be able to pick his choice of television rather than having the government do it for him.

'Joe Public' already can pick his choice, just because he's paid for the TV licence doesn't mean he has to watch the BBC - but most people do.

• The BBC would be forced to become more efficent because not only would they be eligable to scrutiny by the public who could easily stop paying into their service, they would have to work with the constraintes of a budget like any other business has to.

the bbc would be scrutinised much less and they are eligible for scrutiny now. have you never heard of the BBC trust?

• The BBC would certainly not be able to afford to keep paying 55 top executives more than the British Prime Minister.

maybe, or maybe the top executives will move elsewhere when they have to take a pay cut and quality falls.

• Broadcasting would become cheaper as their would be more rivallry which would force the BBC down to the same prices as Sky and Virgin, possibly with all becoming even cheaper.

the bbc is already cheaper than said alternatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I love how your head seems to think UKIP wouldn't be just as corrupt as the other parties. If only you realised that.

The Nazi got in because people though they were heros. You think that about UKIP.

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 not have a monopoly, it's the fact that in today's multi-channel world, the BBC is the only broadcaster that can actually produce quality shows. We have a problem in this country that producing quality shows costs alot of money at a small audience, this wouldn't change with privatisation - all we'll get is US imports.

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.

Saying the BBC gets money from the government is a very serious allegation as it has implications on its impartiality. Can you please link me to some evidence.

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

I don't believe Channel 4 is struggling, infact in certain sectors, like young people, channel 4 is incredibly more popular than the BBC.

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.

i seriously doubt more choice will errupt from the privatisation from the BBC. I suspect more populist programming and we'll get more shows such as Britain's Got Talent and boring, formulaic american dramas.

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

perhaps.

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

'Joe Public' already can pick his choice, just because he's paid for the TV licence doesn't mean he has to watch the BBC - but most people do.

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

the bbc would be scrutinised much less and they are eligible for scrutiny now. have you never heard of the BBC trust?

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.

maybe, or maybe the top executives will move elsewhere when they have to take a pay cut and quality falls.

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 already cheaper than said alternatives.

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?

[alexxxxx]

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

it's called the lowest common denominator.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

So whats so worrying about it becoming private?

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.