Tv licence has "10 years left"

[I1L2T3]

But in some posters heads that is everything it produces right now, out of yesterday's listing that I provided which of those do you think fall into the educational and cultural category ?

 

There's nothing on the listing that is really that bad and much of it is news, information, educational stuff. The BBC works hard to weave its remit into programs. Much of the listing is home grown, not particularly big budget. For example, instead of a staid and boring antiques show there's Flog It. Travel shows are spiced up, away from the old format holiday shows. Doctors deals with medical, social and relationship themes.

 

I don't think the content is that bad but my beef with it all is why it costs so much to produce it. I think the BBC is wasteful and out of touch with real life economics. The corporation needs a rocket up its backside, needs to be more frugal. That is why I'd support an initial cut in funding to 75% of now, and eventual removal of the licence fee. The BBC needs to be made accountable for the way it spends money, in the same way that other branches of the state are.

[unbeliever]

But in some posters heads that is everything it produces right now, out of yesterday's listing that I provided which of those do you think fall into the educational and cultural category ?

 

Hardly.

There may be value in the BBC making programs which can then be sold on abroad to raise extra funds.

What value could there be in the BBC buying in expensive content from abroad when commercial providers would otherwise do so?

[bigsexydoug]

Hardly.

There may be value in the BBC making programs which can then be sold on abroad to raise extra funds.

What value could there be in the BBC buying in expensive content from abroad when commercial providers would otherwise do so?

 

Non, its not needed as many other providers do that, but the poster above yours implies that out of yesterday's listings it was mostly educational or cultural tv, I can't see that myself, otherwise just about every programmee ever made was cultural or educational !

[Happ Hazzard]

The budget is far too big, on average $6 million per episode. So far there's 5 seasons of 10 episodes each so that's $300 million.

 

You criticise them for not making it yet if they did you'd be up in arms!

Why would I criticise them for making something that can be sold around the world, and bring in far more money than it costs to make?

[psynuk]

Non, its not needed as many other providers do that, but the poster above yours implies that out of yesterday's listings it was mostly educational or cultural tv, I can't see that myself, otherwise just about every programmee ever made was cultural or educational !

 

But that wasn't yesterday's listings, it was a small portion of the total content.

 

I can see your point - Why do I have to pay for something I don't want?

and I kind of agree with it's sentiments. But the public service aspect can't be replaced by commercialisation. Which company is going to want to take a punt on broadcasting an equivalent of bbc parliament, bbc wales and the like?

 

A lot of the output of the bbc is just not commercially viable but is of some national interest. It's part and parcel of being british, you pays yer fee and you complains about the output. but will probably sit entranced by Attenborough, probably like some of the music played by peel and co, probably sit your kids in front of cbeebies for an hour whilst cooking tea.

so on and so forth, stuff that has little chance of life on a commercial basis.

 

Game of Thrones, Breaking bad, Sopranos etc are great and notable, but are exceptions. Generally a high percentage of the output on sky is dire and simply a vehicle for adverts.

Great stuff comes on the bbc as much as anywhere else. the difference is who pays the piper and it's not the subscription fee payer that calls the tune on commercial channels. Have you not seen idiocracy yet?

[flamingjimmy]

Why would I criticise them for making something that can be sold around the world, and bring in far more money than it costs to make?

 

Because you're an immature person who's biased against them.

[unbeliever]

But that wasn't yesterday's listings, it was a small portion of the total content.

 

I can see your point - Why do I have to pay for something I don't want?

and I kind of agree with it's sentiments. But the public service aspect can't be replaced by commercialisation. Which company is going to want to take a punt on broadcasting an equivalent of bbc parliament, bbc wales and the like?

 

A lot of the output of the bbc is just not commercially viable but is of some national interest. It's part and parcel of being british, you pays yer fee and you complains about the output. but will probably sit entranced by Attenborough, probably like some of the music played by peel and co, probably sit your kids in front of cbeebies for an hour whilst cooking tea.

so on and so forth, stuff that has little chance of life on a commercial basis.

 

Game of Thrones, Breaking bad, Sopranos etc are great and notable, but are exceptions. Generally a high percentage of the output on sky is dire and simply a vehicle for adverts.

Great stuff comes on the bbc as much as anywhere else. the difference is who pays the piper and it's not the subscription fee payer that calls the tune on commercial channels. Have you not seen idiocracy yet?

 

I've yet to hear a half-decent argument as to why they can't confine themselves purely to output which is socially valuable, but not commercially self-financing.

Yes they should do BBC parliament, culture, children's programs etc which wouldn't work, or would be compromised by commercial considerations. Why should they do anything else?

Edited June 25, 2015 by unbeliever

[Happ Hazzard]

If commercial TV is so bad, why are nearly all the best TV shows of the past 15 years from commercial TV?

[bigsexydoug]

But that wasn't yesterday's listings, it was a small portion of the total content.

 

I can see your point - Why do I have to pay for something I don't want?

and I kind of agree with it's sentiments. But the public service aspect can't be replaced by commercialisation. Which company is going to want to take a punt on broadcasting an equivalent of bbc parliament, bbc wales and the like?

 

A lot of the output of the bbc is just not commercially viable but is of some national interest. It's part and parcel of being british, you pays yer fee and you complains about the output. but will probably sit entranced by Attenborough, probably like some of the music played by peel and co, probably sit your kids in front of cbeebies for an hour whilst cooking tea.

so on and so forth, stuff that has little chance of life on a commercial basis.

 

Game of Thrones, Breaking bad, Sopranos etc are great and notable, but are exceptions. Generally a high percentage of the output on sky is dire and simply a vehicle for adverts.

Great stuff comes on the bbc as much as anywhere else. the difference is who pays the piper and it's not the subscription fee payer that calls the tune on commercial channels. Have you not seen idiocracy yet?

 

i did say that wasnt the entire bbc listings, i just wanted to kow from their 2 main channels on a standard day what bbc supporters think falls into the cultural and eductaional bracket .

 

as ive said i find sky content to much much more enjoyable, i also accept people have different opions hence my reason to make it subscription as then both groups would be catered for to some extent , rather than according to this poll it seems a vast majority feel they are NOT getting value for their money.

 

the thing is aswell that this oppurtunity could also be a real shot in the arm to the bbc, instead of playing it safe with a garaunteed income no matter what it produces it would then have to actually take its blinkers off, address its audience and might produce some utterly stunning programme making that make me subscribe for it and sell over the world boosting its coffers for even better content.

 

ive just looked into the bbc pairlament figures from 2013 to 2014, i dont know how but it cost the bbc roughly 10 million pounds, im still trying to figure that out, it doesnt need actors or sets, it doesnt need "stars" it needs so few staff and equipment i cant see how they managed to spend a tenth of that !

[I1L2T3]

I've yet to hear a half-decent argument as to why they can't confine themselves purely to output which is socially valuable, but not commercially self-financing.

Yes they should do BBC parliament, culture, children's programs etc which wouldn't work, or would be compromised by commercial considerations. Why should they do anything else?

 

One argument is that the BBC is very good at selling its some of its shows commercially. It is 25% self-funding from doing so.

 

Make no mistake there are some very good things about the BBC. If it fully unleashed its commercial capability then it could fund a lot more of the public service broadcasting output, e.g from selling more shows abroad.