Firstly. many thanks for the terrific response to the first ever B-BBC poll. A reader has contacted me and suggested this poll and I wanted to oblige. Remember this is YOUR site as much as mine so if you have any cool ideas for a stimulating future poll, let me know via the suggest a poll link below!
A SUNDAY POLL
Bookmark the permalink.
What about the funding of BBC Radio?
It’s hard to see how that could work on a PPV basis and, I must admit, I’d rather not have to do without R3, Poetry Please (R4),Gardener’s Question Time (R4)and the occasional (all too occasional!) R4 play (yes, I am boring).
If we could eradicate the pervasive Left-liberal bias, I’m not even sure I’d mind a small licence fee, but I suspect the rot has gone far, far too deep.
The poll asks about all TV channels. Some of those who pay the current full TV tax don’t even have all the BBC channels and don’t know what is on them. It’s the same with BBC Radio stations: I don’t know the half of them or what they are for.
I went for the GBP10 option as I love Radio 2 and would hate it to disappear. So basically I would be happy with a radio license!
I have agree with Millie Tant about paying for channels I can’t even get. Digital is coming here in a couple of months, but apart from American imports I watch very little on BBC.
I also don’t see why I have to pay for their internet site – it can be accessed without need for a license but is paid for by the license payer.
I opted for the pay as you go.I watch so little of their output these days.Why they can’t become a subscription channel on sky/cable I don’t know.
As for the radio staions,I agree that some of their output is worthwhile and genuinely fills that space in the media that public service broadcasters should.Radio 2 I’m afraid is an anti competitive arm of Pravda.
Locally,I suffer radio leicester,which a few old biddies love but the flavour is heavily left wing,’pro multi cultural,if you don’t believe in huge inflows of unlimited immigration,then you’re a nazi’ type politics,from people who have had their snout in the public trough for way too long.
Presumably the costs for the radio and for the excellent website (apart from the news and ‘climate change’ bits) would be rolled into the pay as you use charge?
How about advertising and pay per view? The advertising could pay for the running costs of the radio and website and then ppv for the tv programmes?
The iplayer thingy is very popular, but free at the moment, surely if there was a small fee for using that then that would attract revenue too.
As well as, or alternative to ppv you could do subscription packages – childrens channels, news etc – hey, just like sky!
Goodness, to think of all of those Grauniad-reading Islington luvvies being made to be ‘productive’ rather than ‘creative’ – it’s made my Sunday!
Great poll!
In fairness to the Beeb (relax, sit down, breathe deeply) the Grand Prix coverage this morning was excellent, better than ITV’s tacky nonsense and they do give us Top Gear (albeit through gritted teeth becase of the ratings).
Shorn of the liberal-left urban Guardian reading bias, the BBC is at its core potentially still a great broadcasing organisation. I would not begrudge them a couple of quid a week if they stopped pumping propaganda at me and did what they were supposed to do all the time.
Though it really does need to be stripped back to its core and have its budgets reduced accordingly: World Service plus three UK TV channels (1,2 and news 24), three UK radio channels(1,3, and 4) a website about a tenth of wahat it has now and kill off all the regional nonsense.
I can’t think of anything worse than keeping BBC News 24, although keeping Radio 1 instead of Radio 2 would come close. I do think that reducing BBC to a tenth of what it is now would be a very good idea.
For those so bored they took the above poll (me included) try these:
THE ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE VS THE PEOPLE and if you are bored with the usual sunday papers check out Mr Stanislav’s new media venture skymadeupnewsandfilth.
BBC radio could be paid in par through some advertising and possibly via a % of the car tax and some Government money being used to provide a basic service.
I’m a little dubious about your polling software (micropoll).
What’s this map of America? At time of writing, according to the map, Pennsylvania(PA) and Texas (TX) voted Nothing, I would not pay anything and 48 states voted Pay as you use.
How likely is it that one Pennsylvanian and one Texan voted and no other Americans? I bet David Preiser (USA) lives in one of these states.
Ok – so I’m the only one here who likes radio 2! But it does play the sort of music I and a lot of people in this country like – a mixture from the 60s to the present.
I will admit to turning it off at 12 noon every weekday when Jeremy Vine is doing his show. Also, it gets turned off on Saturday when Jonathan Ross starts (I can’t stand the way he talks over everyone) and does not go on again until Sunday.
But generally it is infinitely better, and with a larger playlist, than the local commercial stations
I have to agree with H – I really cannot do without Terry Wogan in the morning on the way to work – 10 minutes of Toady in the morning as the alarm goes off is quite enough for me to get overheated – my husband turns into Michael Winner and tells me to ‘calm down, dear!’.
My response to the poll was really for the Radio (gardners’ question time is on as I speak)but the TV – my viewing is getting less and less.
My thinking is that Radio 2 is very sucessful so could survive well in the private sector.
Radio 1 has a remit to promote new music which would not otherwise get a break in the commerical sector. The music industry is important to British economy and culture.
H: You haven’t been paying attention! See my post above.
And I wouldn’t dream of listening to Vine the Whine or Ross the Gross, but who brought us for years and years the incomparable Benny Green (RIP)with his encyclopaedic knowledge and passion for the great popular music of America? Radio 2, of course.
And many other examples of wonderful programmes in the popular music genres, from Mark Lamarr on obscure early rock and roll where ese would you hear those?) to the Sunday evening programme that covers the danceband music of the early 20th century. Al Bowlly “Love is the Sweetest Thing” – where would you hear it? I love it!
And leaving aside my personal preferences, there is a huge demographic for Radio 2.
Oops: apologies for typos.
Should read:
(Where else would you hear those?)
Regarding radio – BBC made the daft decision to stream in something other than MP3, thus making themselves incompatible with the vast majority of radio streaming software.
Because of that, we switched the house to listening to music from SomaFM (we stream via an iPod Touch connected to some decent speakers). This is instructive – SomaFM is advert-free, as per the Beeb. Unlike the Beeb, I am not forced into paying for it and I could listen for free should I choose to.
I chose not to, and I voluntarily donated a payment to them equal to about a third of the license fee. This simply because I like what they do, not because there’s any technical need for me to do it.
I quite like the This American Life podcast from NPR in the States – again, for two years now I’ve voluntarily paid for this podcast although there is no technical need for me to do so.
My point? If the Beeb think they’re so indispensable, let them prove it by getting people to pay if they choose. I voted ‘pay by usage’ – I’d pay for Doctor Who, and I’d pay for the Grand Prix. There was a time I’d have also paid for some CBeebies, but our kids are now slightly too old for that. I’d pay for just about nothing else.
Let the Beeb have a channel or two of free previews for their shows, maybe they show one or two episodes of it and the rest has to be bought. Let them do packages such as “All Sunday night dramas for a year” or similar, and let people choose what they want. I’d -much- rather go this route than either keep the current license fee or descend into advert-driven programming.
I can’t deny there are some things to watch and listen on the BBC. So I went for pay as you see. I wouldn’t pay for any daytime TV. I hardly ever watch the morning TV news. I would pay for some of the evening content on TV (mostly BBC2 and BBC4). I wouldn’t pay for radio 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, the Asian Network or whatever else there is. I would pay for some limited fivelive content (Mayo (good guests), some sport) and some Radio 4 content.
P.S. Why is it called the Asian Network? It doesn’t cover aspects of Asian culture as in Asia which includes Russia, China, Japan, Thailand, etc. or should it really just be called the sub-continent network?
nrg: Can’t agree. I though F1 coverage was shite. Eddie jordan was annoying and the lead presenter knew bugger all about F1. Brundle was good, but I know ITV didn’t know how to present F1 that well but the BBC came up very short in my view.
i said i’d be prepared to pay 50 quid, only if the bbc maintains and builds transmitters that all the digital channels use. if not pay per view is the fairest thing.
It can only be ‘pay as you use’. Whenevr unchallenged (emphasis)leftism comes on, we would switch off and down goes the revenue. One thing to note about the socialists who run and work in the BBC: they’re very interested in money when there’s a possibility of a lack of it!
“Radio 1 has a remit to promote new music which would not otherwise get a break in the commerical sector. The music industry is important to British economy and culture.”
There are many local and regional independent stations such as Manchester’s Key 103 which can do the same as Radio 1.
No, I think R1 and the ghastly 1Xtra are due the chop…
“the Grand Prix coverage this morning was excellent, better than ITV’s tacky nonsense”
Come off it. Eddie Jordan was a pain in the arse, they seemed to be obsessed with “interviewing” Richard Branson for some reason, and they still haven’t properly explained the (actually relatively simple) issue with the diffusers. Martin Brundle could have done it in 20 seconds with a quick graphic. If you’d stuck some adverts in and put that out on ITV, nobody would have been any the wiser.
And that’s not a criticism, incidentally; apart from the ad breaks I never really understood what got people so exercised about ITV’s coverage. Free TV has to cater for the casual viewer, not us obsessives.
Better or worse? All things considered, much the same.
Anyway, this is OT. Pay-as-you-go for the Beeb, although I’d rather see advertising.
There’s very little tv I’d want to pay for on there these days. Doctor Who maybe, perhaps Later With Jools Holland and thats it.
I get my Family Guy habit fed by FX and all the good sf and non-sf dramas via cable (Fringe, Burn Notice, etc). The thing is that there is so much better drama on cable, the best of the US stuff. When did the BBC last buy and air GOOD US drama?
Radio? Don’t make me laugh. I get 15 mins of the highly irritating Sarah Kennedy via my radio alarm. Also R4 for the excellent Old Harry’s Game and if the legendary John Shuttleworth has a series on. Otherwise, my morning drive to work is Planet Rock with the razor sharp Alice Cooper (yes, him!).
So, no, I’d pay nowt at all…
Let Gunnar pay!
Allan@Oslo – too right, no brainer.
They advertise all the time anyway – we’re all digi now – scale it down, subsidize thru adverts and give them time to re-organize.
Just because the BBC is phenomenally rubbish now doesn’t mean that we need to screw it.
Pay as you go – ’tis the only reasonable answer. If they take the mickey on pricing then just chuck the porn on expenses… oh, hang on a minute…
Ref Formula 1. Is the BBC getting a rake off from B&Q for putting this on. I understand the sale of emulsion paint goes up hugely whenever Formula 1 is on as millions partake in the marginally more interesting “sport” of watching paint dry! It adds a whole new dimension to the phrase “getting some tinnies in”.
Subscription is the fairest option even this rebel would be prepared to pay for a couple of months of Dr Who or Spooks which are the only programms I watch apart from the Comedy Playhouse that is known as Question Time (which you can watch live for free online)
Don’t know about radio funding, It’s not top of my priorities, I Listen to commercial radio (suprise) round here and we’re spoilt for choice with plenty of good stations. I do appretiate there are people on here who enjoy BBC radio. My suggestions would be a complete slim down of services – yes CUTS I don’t mind using the word as al-beeb is bloated to bursting point and something needs to be done. Ditch the local crap that nobody listens to and concentrate on the 5 national networks and let the government fully fund the World Service which after all is just a government mouthpiece and do we really need a BBC Asian Network?
Your telly tax pounds also go to fund BBC Radio Scotland, Radio Wales/Cymru (two services English and Welsh) and Northern Ireland. (note: no Radio England!) You English telly tax payers should be well pissed off about this because you are paying the lions share of all this waste.
I would also suggest a radio surcharge on top of the monthly TV Subscription, If you live in Wales then a portion of the charge will go to Radio Wales and likewise in Scotland and NI altogether a much fairer solution I think.
Millie Tant – I apologise! I didn’t read your post correctly, but now I know you’re pro radio 2, you’re definitely one of my favorite people!
I agree with you whole heartedly but you didn’t mention such radio 2 greats as Paul Jones, Bob Harris, Brian Matthew…..
The people who keep me listening even though the beeb want us all to be ‘young and trendy’! They don’t realise that their core audience is over 21!!!
“note: no Radio England!”
I’m not in the habit of defending the Beeb, but I don’t buy for a second the idea that this is discrimination against England: BBC Radios Scotland, Wales, NI, etc. are (to all intents and purposes, although they’d deny it to the death) local stations, like BBC London, Radio Leicester, et. al. There are no BBC local stations serving Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, or any other city in the fringe nations.
So take your pick: Radio England (which, given that you’re nearly 90% of the population, would effectively be yet another national station, making, what… 9?), or local radio.
Or – preferably – get rid of the lot.
BBC needs abolishing full stop, its cancer ridden biased to the core.
Even its latest.
Get rid of a broadcaster that goes on and on about the few quid that the scumbag home secretary’s husband used to watch porn and tried to claim.
But promptly ignores the maxed out over sixty grand in one year that the the shadow deputy leader claimed despite being a multimillionnaire with self admitted no mortgage and earnings in the year of near a million, that’s Hague in case it wasnt obvious.
He’s in the BBC’s good books after his swallowing of the BBC party line and dissing of Israel.
Pathetic.
H:my new friend! I know I didn’t mention lots of people on R2 – just picked a couple of examples of great programmes presented by people who are very knowledgeable and steeped in the music. I like Brian Matthew too. And Russell Davies does well, though who can fill the enormous shoes of Benny Green? I’m selective, though and only listen to relatively few specific programmes rather than having it on continuously. I’m the same with R4 and R3.
R2 has been very successful at giving people over 21 the sort of broad- appeal popular music types and programmes that they actually enjoy. Long may it continue to do that.
Sam Duncan:
“note: no Radio England!”
I’m not in the habit of defending the Beeb, but I don’t buy for a second the idea that this is discrimination against England: BBC Radios Scotland, Wales, NI, etc. are (to all intents and purposes, although they’d deny it to the death) local stations, like BBC London, Radio Leicester, et. al. There are no BBC local stations serving Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, or any other city in the fringe nations.
So take your pick: Radio England (which, given that you’re nearly 90% of the population, would effectively be yet another national station, making, what… 9?), or local radio.
Or – preferably – get rid of the lot.
Sam Duncan | 30.03.09 – 12:38 am | #
————————————–Indeed long and loud are the complaints I have seen elsewhere on the internet about the BBC being the EBC – English Broadcasting Corporation.
(Sorry if this appears to be off-subject, but I will eventually refer to a poll in my post).
Given that Islam, or at least the actions of individuals, groups and governments interpreting its teachings, is a central feature of just about every news broadcast wouldn’t it be in the public’s interest to have the BBC make a documentary series about all aspects of this religion? An objective, multi-sourced explanation (i.e. using people who have widely different takes on the religion, such as Robert Spencer and Karen Armstrong). This documentary would present the beliefs and history of Islam, would avoid omissions (lest the facts offend), and would refrain from whitewashing and making facile exaggerations about the impact of Islamic science on the West (as is the wont of the BBC).
I think a poll would show that people would be interested in such an objective documentary (or series). Now, why is it that I know the BBC would not dare to touch this subject? Is it (to borrow a phrase from Andrewsouthlondon in another thread) because that many beeboids are over-compensating closet racists?
Include me out: I wouldn’t give it house room and I don’t want the BBC promoting it, which they and the government – and even the C of E, God help us – are wont to do. I don’t want to see anything about it. If I did I’d go to Saudi Arabia or a hundred and one other places where it reigns. But why would I want to?
In North America, cable providers license each channel from the producers of the channel at rates relative to the viewership, but in general, apart from ESPN at about $1.15/mo., most of them cost a cable operator $0.10 to $0.30 per subscriber, per month.
It’s then resold as part of a package that breaks out to about $0.65/ch./mo. to the subscriber.
By extention, even at the highest rate of cost, the bouquet of BBC channels should not cost more than £25-£28 p.a. to the subscriber.
THAT is it’s fair market value, not £142 with non-market-based gradations for people with B&W tv sets and the like.
Even at that, it’s likely that the £25-£28 p.a. fee, as well as “the production side” cost where ads would be sold, could likely be covered by running one ad every hour.