The BBC  permalink

BBC sells out to Foxtel in Australia - breaking a 50 year partnership with Aust Govt ABC tv

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 52
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Paige Garland (U15698931) on Thursday, 18th April 2013

    Shame! Shame! Shame! I am absolutely gobsmaked by the BBC's decision to sell their programs to privately run multinational Foxtel pay tv...instead of continuing their 50 year relationship of selling their programs to our Australian government run ABC free to air tv.

    www.abc.net.au/news/...

    The Australia public pay their tax dollars to get great quality free to air tv - which we get and value on ABC and SBS...I am appauled at BBC managements decision to make this decision to break a 50 year commercial partnership without even showing the ABC management any respect in the process...and selling out to Mr Murdoch's Foxtel.

    DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "In the past the ABC has been able to point to our audience share, distinctive reach and the unique relationship between the two organisations, which has lasted 50 years," the spokesman said.

    "The ABC is disappointed that this decision was taken without any consultation."

    Just because Foxtel will give you a dedicated BBC channel in Australia - doesn't mean you are expanding your reach....not all Australians bother to pay to watch Foxtel....

    BAD CHOICE BBC BOARD BAD CHOICE

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    It does seem a terrible shame (though it could perhaps be expressed more moderately). I grew up watching BBC programmes on the ABC, and I learned more from them than I ever did in school.
    I guess the BBC has to grasp for money anywhere it can these days, and the ABC, being publicly funded cannot compete.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    As a UK licence fee payer if it gives the BBC a better return for its progammes I'm all for it.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    As a UK licence fee payer if it gives the BBC a better return for its progammes I'm all for it.  So you feel the BBC is no different from any other money-making enterprise? Would you scrap the World Service then?

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    I've noticed people often on this board complaining that their favourite sports (football, cricket etc) are "selling out" to Sky (Fox's stablemate) for higher fees. They feel that the bodies which control these should settle for the lesser amounts that the BBC can afford so that everyone can enjoy them.
    But when the boot is on the other foot and its the Beeb doing the selling apparently its a case of grab as much dosh as you can no matter what.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    What have the BBC (probably, BBC Worldwide) actually done? They have set up a fifth channel on Foxtel (UKTV*, BBC Knowledge, CBeebies and BBC World News). It has exclusive broadcast rights for 12 months, but does NOT gave an effect on existing contracts for the likes of Doctor Who.

    www.smh.com.au/digit...

    *Yes, I know that UKTV is not a BBC Channel, but it is a joint venture involving BBC Worldwide.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    As a UK licence fee payer if it gives the BBC a better return for its progammes I'm all for it.  So you feel the BBC is no different from any other money-making enterprise? Would you scrap the World Service then?  The World Service is a government initiative even though the BBC runs it on their behalf. Yes, the BBC should maximise its income wherever it can for the benefit of UK licence payers.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    It could also be argued that by selling to Murdoch they are helping him to control the world media which would include the UK in the future which might not be a sensible move for the BBC.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 19th April 2013


    Why's that Radioactive?

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    As a UK licence fee payer if it gives the BBC a better return for its progammes I'm all for it.  So you feel the BBC is no different from any other money-making enterprise? Would you scrap the World Service then?  The World Service is a government initiative even though the BBC runs it on their behalf. Yes, the BBC should maximise its income wherever it can for the benefit of UK licence payers.  I'd have thought that you, of all people, Phil, would be more idealistic about the BBC and perhaps consider that public service broadcasters in different countries should work together and help each other out. After all with the ever-growing power of international mega-companies like Fox, public broadcasters may soon be an endangered species.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 19th April 2013


    Why's that Radioactive?  
    Viewer appeal = more money in Murdochs bank account. Would Tesco's offer their top selling exclusive brands to Sainsburys?

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 19th April 2013


    Why's that Radioactive?  
    Viewer appeal = more money in Murdochs bank account. Would Tesco's offer their top selling exclusive brands to Sainsburys? 

    For money, yes I'd imagine they would. Particularly if they managed to get Tesco blazoned all over Sainsbury's shelves, they'd love that!

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    As a UK licence fee payer if it gives the BBC a better return for its progammes I'm all for it.  So you feel the BBC is no different from any other money-making enterprise? Would you scrap the World Service then?  The World Service is a government initiative even though the BBC runs it on their behalf. Yes, the BBC should maximise its income wherever it can for the benefit of UK licence payers.  I'd have thought that you, of all people, Phil, would be more idealistic about the BBC and perhaps consider that public service broadcasters in different countries should work together and help each other out. After all with the ever-growing power of international mega-companies like Fox, public broadcasters may soon be an endangered species.  
    They don't have a licence fee in Australia - I believe they pay via taxes.

    Would you be happy paying a higher licence fee to ensure that Australia still got the programmes on ABC?

    That's really what it comes down to. The money paid will go back into the BBC and helps to keep the licence fee for us all down.

    I have sympathy for ABC, but really, if there's a higher bidder then I'd rather the BBC took the money.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 19th April 2013


    Why's that Radioactive?  
    Viewer appeal = more money in Murdochs bank account. Would Tesco's offer their top selling exclusive brands to Sainsburys? 

    For money, yes I'd imagine they would. Particularly if they managed to get Tesco blazoned all over Sainsbury's shelves, they'd love that!

     
    It's well established that Sky and the like have no issues with branding from other channels, the fact that they've got the variety is the key selling point - take away the top channels and except for sport they'd struggle to get customers. Pop over to France and see how many Brits have got Sky showing the BBC (they're not suppoosed to but they do) and as I recall doesn't the BBC pay Sky for BBC programme channels?

    A quick buck today may prove costly tomorrow especially if the licence charter is altered.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    Oh dear. If making money now takes precedence over everything else at the BBC then much of what is best about it will be lost.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 19th April 2013


    Would you be happy to pay more for your licence fee to subsidise the Australians Annie-Lou?

    That's really what it comes down to...

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013


    Would you be happy to pay more for your licence fee to subsidise the Australians Annie-Lou?

    That's really what it comes down to...

     
    Why must it be a one way street? Is there no benefit for the BBC in working in partnership with other public broadcasters around the world? Partnerships that have been built up over decades are now being thrown away. it is very short sighted. If there's one thing you can guarantee about Mr Murdoch, its that he won't be doing you any favours down the line.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    "That's really what it comes down to. The money paid will go back into the BBC and helps to keep the licence fee for us all down."

    The only logical conclusion of that thinking is to abolish the BBC altogether and have only commercial channels then the licence fee would be zero. Perfection achieved.

    The licence fee is enforced by law. We have hundreds of other channels. If market forces were allowed to reign unchallenged, there would be no BBC.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 19th April 2013


    Do you think there would be a benefit? TV programme exchanges or something like that?

    Do you think the British public would like to see more Australian TV programmes?

    If they're changed the old agreements then presumably there was a very good reason for doing it. I assume that it's financial.

    I'd honestly rather we saved money over here - there isn't a recession in Australia at the moment - I believe that the BBC should look after the UK licence fee payer interests first and foremost.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    "That's really what it comes down to. The money paid will go back into the BBC and helps to keep the licence fee for us all down."

    The only logical conclusion of that thinking is to abolish the BBC altogether and have only commercial channels then the licence fee would be zero. Perfection achieved.

    The licence fee is enforced by law. We have hundreds of other channels. If market forces were allowed to reign unchallenged, there would be no BBC.
     

    Yes but then our TV would be trashy and filled with ads. And you'd have to subscribe to channels, which would probably cost us all way more!

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    No doubt Murdoch has responded in kind by allowing the BBC to cover all F1 races live and live coverage of football and cricket matches.

    Big holes in the ABC schedules in the future:

    search.abc.net.au/se...

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    "That's really what it comes down to. The money paid will go back into the BBC and helps to keep the licence fee for us all down."

    The only logical conclusion of that thinking is to abolish the BBC altogether and have only commercial channels then the licence fee would be zero. Perfection achieved.

    The licence fee is enforced by law. We have hundreds of other channels. If market forces were allowed to reign unchallenged, there would be no BBC.
     

    Yes but then our TV would be trashy and filled with ads. And you'd have to subscribe to channels, which would probably cost us all way more!

     
    Yes, thats exactly what will happen if we think only of the "bottom line".

    Are the BBC executives who took this decision really thinking of the interests of the UK licence payer, or rather of generating enough income to pay their 7 figure salaries? If they really had the licence fee payer's interests at heart wouldn't they do something about their notorious taxi bills (and other such wasting of money...)

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    What makes me laugh is that they have sold out to Murdoch - he who they love to hate. When it comes down to it they have made a commercial decision - the BBC, like any other business would do business with lucifer himself if necessary.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    "That's really what it comes down to. The money paid will go back into the BBC and helps to keep the licence fee for us all down."

    The only logical conclusion of that thinking is to abolish the BBC altogether and have only commercial channels then the licence fee would be zero. Perfection achieved.

    The licence fee is enforced by law. We have hundreds of other channels. If market forces were allowed to reign unchallenged, there would be no BBC.
     

    Yes but then our TV would be trashy and filled with ads. And you'd have to subscribe to channels, which would probably cost us all way more!

     
    Yes, thats exactly what will happen if we think only of the "bottom line".

    Are the BBC executives who took this decision really thinking of the interests of the UK licence payer, or rather of generating enough income to pay their 7 figure salaries? If they really had the licence fee payer's interests at heart wouldn't they do something about their notorious taxi bills (and other such wasting of money...)  

    Oh come on Annie-Lou - that's a cheap answer - I'm happy to chat but not if it gets silly.

    Their notorious taxi bills - you know better than that don't you? They're all documented nowadays.

    The vast vast vast majority of taxi fares are either for guests - we can hardly tell them to get the bus - or for people coming into work to do shifts in the middle of the night where there isn't public transport.

    Anyway, that's off topic here and has been done to death in other discussions already.

    Have a good weekend! smiley - smiley

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    Sorry, Peta, I didn't mean to offend. The taxi bills were only a randomly-chosen example. I could have chosen from any number of well-publicised examples of the "licence fee payer's financial interests" not actually being paramount.

    I just think it is rather sad. Perhaps I am expecting too much but I hoped that the BBC as the grandaddy (or rather grand-Auntie) of public broadcasting would, wherever reasonably possible, support the idea of public broadcasting as A Good Thing per se. Instead of going along with the notion (so sadly prevalent in our modern world) that everything is for sale to Mr Murdoch if the price is right.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    As a UK licence fee payer if it gives the BBC a better return for its progammes I'm all for it.  So you feel the BBC is no different from any other money-making enterprise? Would you scrap the World Service then?  The World Service is a government initiative even though the BBC runs it on their behalf. Yes, the BBC should maximise its income wherever it can for the benefit of UK licence payers.  I'd have thought that you, of all people, Phil, would be more idealistic about the BBC and perhaps consider that public service broadcasters in different countries should work together and help each other out. After all with the ever-growing power of international mega-companies like Fox, public broadcasters may soon be an endangered species.   Selfishly I suppose I am only interested in a strong BBC. They should not give the progammes we have paid for in the UK away but should get as much for them as they can. ABC appears to be funded at the whim of the Australian government; perhaps Australia should adopt the UK licence fee model.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 24.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    Looking at what the BBC is up to in all sorts of areas these days suggests it thinks prioritising money over integrity is the only the way it can survive in such a competitive environment.
    Perhaps they really believe the survival of a bastardised BBC is better than no BBC at all.
    Personally, I'm not so sure. smiley - sadface

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by AmosBurke (U8229185) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    ABC appears to be funded at the whim of the Australian government; perhaps Australia should adopt the UK licence fee model.  Australia did have a TV licence, but it was abolished by the Labor government in 1974. Labor (spelled correctly for the party) finally came to power after 26 years.
    The near-universality of television and radio services meant that public funding was a fairer method of providing revenue for government-owned radio and television broadcasters. IMO this was a mistake, but it would be too difficult to reintroduce it now.

    What I have never understood is why the TV licence is so unpopular. We get stations without commercials, save self-promotion, yet people are happy to pay the various evil empires money to get TV stations with commercials.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Friday, 19th April 2013

    "The vast vast vast majority of taxi fares are either for guests - we can hardly tell them to get the bus - or for people coming into work to do shifts in the middle of the night where there isn't public transport."

    and then there are the taxi fares taken by one particular person from Manchester Piccadilly to a hotel in Manchester. The same person got a taxi to the HQ in Salford. The distance from the station to the only 5 star hotel in Manchester(hint - it is actually in Salford) is a maximum of a twenty minute walk. The distance to the Salford Quays - maximum 20 minutes walk.

    Now it may be that this person had lots of lugguage on arrival and needed a taxi to the hotel, but the visit to Salford was the next day. I also noted that George Entwistle did not take a taxi but jumped on public transport.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Saturday, 20th April 2013

    Looking at what the BBC is up to in all sorts of areas these days suggests it thinks prioritising money over integrity is the only the way it can survive in such a competitive environment.
    Perhaps they really believe the survival of a bastardised BBC is better than no BBC at all.
    Personally, I'm not so sure. smiley - sadface
     
    In what way is the BBC prioritising money over integrity. The organisation has been criticised for not maximising its income from exploiting progammes in overseas markets. We make some of the best TV in the world and we should be capitalising on it as long as concessions are not being made to foreign markets when progammes are made. I am sure that ABC is big enough now to stand on its own two feet and does not need to be propped up by its British counterpart.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Saturday, 20th April 2013

    Looking at what the BBC is up to in all sorts of areas these days suggests it thinks prioritising money over integrity is the only the way it can survive in such a competitive environment.
    Perhaps they really believe the survival of a bastardised BBC is better than no BBC at all.
    Personally, I'm not so sure. smiley - sadface
     
    In what way is the BBC prioritising money over integrity. The organisation has been criticised for not maximising its income from exploiting progammes in overseas markets. We make some of the best TV in the world and we should be capitalising on it as long as concessions are not being made to foreign markets when progammes are made. I am sure that ABC is big enough now to stand on its own two feet and does not need to be propped up by its British counterpart. 
    It's not a question of whither ABC can stand on it's own two feet, the long term question is do you feed a tiger that will end up consuming you?

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Saturday, 20th April 2013

    It's not a question of whither ABC can stand on it's own two feet, the long term question is do you feed a tiger that will end up consuming you?  I think we are in the realms of fantasy now.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Saturday, 20th April 2013

    It's not a question of whither ABC can stand on it's own two feet, the long term question is do you feed a tiger that will end up consuming you?  I think we are in the realms of fantasy now.  I suggest you look at Sky's gross turnover in the UK compared to the BBC Phil-ap and then look at Murdochs ownership of film studios and other world channels.
    I might be wrong but then so might you be, so a logical choice would be to play safe by not giving Murdoch more channels unless of course you wish to see a truly commercial BBC.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Saturday, 20th April 2013

    It's not a question of whither ABC can stand on it's own two feet, the long term question is do you feed a tiger that will end up consuming you?  I think we are in the realms of fantasy now.  I suggest you look at Sky's gross turnover in the UK compared to the BBC Phil-ap and then look at Murdochs ownership of film studios and other world channels.
    I might be wrong but then so might you be, so a logical choice would be to play safe by not giving Murdoch more channels unless of course you wish to see a truly commercial BBC.

     
    The BBC is and should be commercial overseas already. There are plenty of safeguards to prevent it becoming commercial in the UK.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Saturday, 20th April 2013

    It's not a question of whither ABC can stand on it's own two feet, the long term question is do you feed a tiger that will end up consuming you?  I think we are in the realms of fantasy now.  I suggest you look at Sky's gross turnover in the UK compared to the BBC Phil-ap and then look at Murdochs ownership of film studios and other world channels.
    I might be wrong but then so might you be, so a logical choice would be to play safe by not giving Murdoch more channels unless of course you wish to see a truly commercial BBC.

     
    The BBC is and should be commercial overseas already. There are plenty of safeguards to prevent it becoming commercial in the UK. 
    Good to know Phil-ap that you can see into the future and can forsee there will be no changes to the Royal Charter or that Parliament will keep on voting for the present system.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Saturday, 20th April 2013

    It's not a question of whither ABC can stand on it's own two feet, the long term question is do you feed a tiger that will end up consuming you?  I think we are in the realms of fantasy now.  I suggest you look at Sky's gross turnover in the UK compared to the BBC Phil-ap and then look at Murdochs ownership of film studios and other world channels.
    I might be wrong but then so might you be, so a logical choice would be to play safe by not giving Murdoch more channels unless of course you wish to see a truly commercial BBC.

     
    The BBC is and should be commercial overseas already. There are plenty of safeguards to prevent it becoming commercial in the UK. 
    Good to know Phil-ap that you can see into the future and can forsee there will be no changes to the Royal Charter or that Parliament will keep on voting for the present system.  
    I'd put money on it.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    Looking at what the BBC is up to in all sorts of areas these days suggests it thinks prioritising money over integrity is the only the way it can survive in such a competitive environment.
    Perhaps they really believe the survival of a bastardised BBC is better than no BBC at all.
    Personally, I'm not so sure. smiley - sadface
     
    In what way is the BBC prioritising money over integrity. The organisation has been criticised for not maximising its income from exploiting progammes in overseas markets. We make some of the best TV in the world and we should be capitalising on it as long as concessions are not being made to foreign markets when progammes are made. I am sure that ABC is big enough now to stand on its own two feet and does not need to be propped up by its British counterpart. 
    When and by whom has the BBC been criticised for not being grasping enough Phil? I think you are making it up. I agree that they make some of the best TV in the world, but that doesn't mean that it is a question of "propping up" other broadcasters, but rather of working together for the common good.
    The Beeb is the first to moan when it is outbid by Sky for programmes like Mad Men, and when it comes to sport and other public events, they actually go so far as to demand that parliament pass legislation to ensure that certain events are "ring fenced" can ONLY be shown by the BBC!!
    In Britain, the BBC demands legal protection from being outbid by Sky, then they go abroad and are happy to sell out to Sky if its the highest bidder (regardless of historic partnerships). Hypocrites.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    ABC appears to be funded at the whim of the Australian government; perhaps Australia should adopt the UK licence fee model.  Australia did have a TV licence, but it was abolished by the Labor government in 1974. Labor (spelled correctly for the party) finally came to power after 26 years.
    The near-universality of television and radio services meant that public funding was a fairer method of providing revenue for government-owned radio and television broadcasters. IMO this was a mistake, but it would be too difficult to reintroduce it now.

    What I have never understood is why the TV licence is so unpopular. We get stations without commercials, save self-promotion, yet people are happy to pay the various evil empires money to get TV stations with commercials.  
    I agree Amos. It seems to be the involuntary nature of the licence fee they resent, though they are happy to pay more for an inferior service if its their choice.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    Ring fenced Programmes Are NOT BBC only - they are either to be shown by a PSB - of which the BBC is but one .... and or on FTA TV of which there are many more .... and I think you will find that whilst the UK PSB would supports some ring fencing the views put forward in Parliament was that for the national good certian events were to be universally available FTA.

    What the BBC can do is very regulated - some may say hindered so that its market influence is limited ...(the 7day rule on Iplayer is a good example of this)
    Does Sky (or ITV of ch4 for that matter) have to publicly seek A PVT and MIA (by ofcom) if it wants to launch a new service??

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    Sorry, Techie, I'd like to answer, but I can't make head nor tail of it. 'Fraid I don't speak acronym. smiley - erm

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    The BBC in launching new (PSB) service has to present the proposal to the BBC trust who do a public value test and ask Ofcom to do a Market Impact assessment.. you may find this helpful www.bbc.co.uk/bbctru...

    Only if these two things are satisfied - in full public glare- can the Trust approve it
    -if they are minded to do
    - and even then they may change their mind ( as in BBC Jam)

    compare that with BSKYB who went out and bought another ISP so they are they the Seton largest ISP in the UK after BT....

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    Ring fenced Programmes Are NOT BBC only - they are either to be shown by a PSB - of which the BBC is but one .... and or on FTA TV of which there are many more .... and I think you will find that whilst the UK PSB would supports some ring fencing the views put forward in Parliament was that for the national good certian events were to be universally available FTA.

    What the BBC can do is very regulated - some may say hindered so that its market influence is limited ...(the 7day rule on Iplayer is a good example of this)
    Does Sky (or ITV of ch4 for that matter) have to publicly seek A PVT and MIA (by ofcom) if it wants to launch a new service?? 
    A very worthy document that relies on the BBC trust carrying out the wishes of the licence payer and there lies the rub. Like other posters I find it hard to understand how an organisation pleading poverty, laying off staff etc can spend half a million pounds of works of art at their newly revamped headquarters. Selling to Murdoch is in my opinion a short term gain with a long term threat. Australia may be far away but the Murdochs bank account is global. So's here's a thought. The money gained by new subscribers in Australia finds it's way to the UK and finances the launch of a new channel called Sky Delay. With this new service BBC programmes are shown with a 10 minute delay from the live broadcast thus avoiding the licence fee which is only required for live viewing. In addition for subscribing to the channel you'll also get Sky Sports and Sky movies for a knock down price. Couldn't happen I hear you say and probably you'll be right but I hope someone at the BBC has considered such a threat in light when furthering the profits of Murdoch.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    I find it hard to understand how an organisation pleading poverty, laying off staff etc can spend half a million pounds of works of art at their newly revamped headquarters. 

    Section 106 requirements from Westminster council .... "To comply with its planning obligations to Westminster City Council, the BBC has continued this tradition and commissioned major new artworks for the new building. " www.bbc.co.uk/broadc...

    In time gone by the Royal Fine Arts Commission had to approve the BBC major buildings - it involved a new Front and mosaic for Pebble Mill for examaple.
    But what is wrong as with the BBC as a major part of the culture of the UK commissioning works of art - after all BBH the original has Eric Gill's Sculpture, TC now Emery has major work by John Piper....

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    I find it hard to understand how an organisation pleading poverty, laying off staff etc can spend half a million pounds of works of art at their newly revamped headquarters. 

    Section 106 requirements from Westminster council .... "To comply with its planning obligations to Westminster City Council, the BBC has continued this tradition and commissioned major new artworks for the new building. " www.bbc.co.uk/broadc...

    In time gone by the Royal Fine Arts Commission had to approve the BBC major buildings - it involved a new Front and mosaic for Pebble Mill for examaple.
    But what is wrong as with the BBC as a major part of the culture of the UK commissioning works of art - after all BBH the original has Eric Gill's Sculpture, TC now Emery has major work by John Piper....  
    No argument with their obligations but did the BBC even try to avoid the cost by appealing to Parliament? It's very easy to spend someone else's money and I underestimated the money spent!

    www.guardian.co.uk/a...

    As a past employer I would never swap the interests of my workforce for the sake of grandstanding.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    On this like much of the BBC Major spending - wait for the NAO report ...
    Phase 1 on BH (and also the aborted works prior to that - like the horizontal and vertical lifts across the road from the late 70s ) was acknowledged to be rather off track - but BH Phase 2 PQ and Salford have all Learnt from what happened then.. even if the NAO tends to be very perfectionist and idealistic.....

    But back to the Foxtel deal - is BBCW sell out because it has 4 channels on that platform at the moment ??? - because it does through a JV with Pearson and Foxtel - as does a company half owned by BBC W on the UK Sky pay platform...

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    When and by whom has the BBC been criticised for not being grasping enough Phil? I think you are making it up 

    No I am not. It was Amando Iannucci last September


    www.guardian.co.uk/m...

    He said he wanted all UK broadcasters but especially the BBC to be more gung-ho about promoting themselves overseas.

    "I want to encourage us to be more aggressive in promoting what makes British TV so good. Be ambitious, arrogant even, in how we sell it to the world.

    "The BBC brand is up there with Apple and Google, I want it to go abroad and prostitute itself to blue buggery in how it sells and makes money from its content."

    He added: "It goes back to the old amateur spirit of the Olympics, that it's wrong to make money. There is still an element of the BBC that feels it is somehow wrong, or it will be open to criticism if it makes more money."

    In a question and answer session after his lecture, Iannucci said the BBC had to stop being scared of negative headlines in the Daily Mail. 

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    No argument with their obligations but did the BBC even try to avoid the cost by appealing to Parliament? It's very easy to spend someone else's money and I underestimated the money spent!. 
    There certainly was a lot of chatting with Westminster Council ..... and that was before the saga of the security precautions hit the headlines...


    BUT other than repealing part of the Act ...
    why should be BBC be more favourably treated than even the MPs themselves - Portcullis House has Section 106 requirements see the last line of idoxpa.westminster.g...

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Radioactiveoldduffer (U4768882) on Wednesday, 24th April 2013

    Lets not forget that BBC Worldwide is part of the BBC and when it's not selling off travel guides at a loss it's primary function is to sell BBC programmes abroad. My beef is not the selling part but the buyers. Will ABC look kindly at the BBC in the future? Will they share exclusives or will they in turn sell to the highest bidder? The BBC has just spent £1 billion bringing all their news resources together but all journalism relies on contacts - they cannot operate in a bubble, so when it comes to Australia, any exclusive news footage is more likely to have a Sky News logo in the future.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.