Decision made. No more licence fee payments from now on.

Kurtis_Blue

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is all well and good, but what are the actual facts?

I presume Arqiva own and operate the physical transmitters, whilst some of the Freeview multiplexes are owned by commercial entities who are not the main broadcasters.

Either way, if LF payers are subsidising commercial broadcasters (which is the implication of what was said earlier) I think we should be told.

Arqiva own and run all the infrastructure.

Obviously the BBC paid for a lot of the transmitters to be built as they were the only players at the time, and round £480m from the TVL fund was spent on the digital switchover, help scheme etc.. that they may/could be seen to have benefited from, but every one will have a different view on what subsidising means.

System

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

but every one will have a different view on what subsidising means.

You've been defending your colleague for two pages who claimed the BBC TV Licence funds it which isn't true, two pages!. So as I stated its the broadcasters that fund it :doh:

In other words if the BBC TV Licence was abolished it wouldn't make any difference :dance:

Nilrem

spacey2012 wrote: »

The BBC can switch off any decoder or receiver codec of live broadcast TV that does not have the default key of the set registered against a licence.
With 128 bit encryption built in, they can guarantee nobody without a licence for that set will not be watching the BBC.
They wont do this for one reason, nobody will pay it when the other hundred or so channels are free.

Or more realistically, because:

A: The BBC's remit is set out by the government, that includes the way the BBC should be funded, the limitations of the BBC's service (which has led to a lot of BBC services being dropped when commercial companies complained about the BBC hurting their market - often with the services dropped not being taken up by the commercial sector), and things like how the services should be distributed - the government for example (from memory) "suggested" be BBC do more on Digital terrestrial to assist in it's take up.
The government also instruct the BBC to collect the TVL (and the BBC do it in almost exactly the same way the post office did for most of the TVL's life).

B: It would change the service from being a public broadcaster free at the point of reception to a subscription based one.

And

C: It would require a lot more money to administer, require tens of millions of receivers to be upgraded (and cards) - and that's if you just went for one "authorised" receiver per house.
IIRC Sky and VM pay not so small fortunes just for the updates to their encryption systems, let alone the cost of the physical cards, receivers or the back end systems (and to be properly secure, you only allow receivers you've designed/sold/supplied preferably with a secure "call back" feature as an essential part of the security, as Ondigital found out to it's cost).


It always amuses me when people go on about the BBC being able to do something, when the something in question would require the government to instruct the BBC to do so, often after a debate in parliament (otherwise the BBC would be breaking their contracts with the government).
Rather like the fairly silly "BBC tax inspectors" and what not, when it's Capita operating under a contract to the BBC, who have been instructed to collect the TVL by the government* (who probably quite like the way the BBC is blamed for the TVL, as opposed to the government who require it's collection, and authorize the methods allowed in the contract).

So ultimately the BBC couldn't make changes to how it's funded.
It's not even allowed to offer commercial services in the UK under the BBC brand (hence BBC:Worldwide), nor ever have loans etc of more than a very limited sum (hence a large part of the reason Broadcasting house couldn't be renovated to modern standards, and why the BBC is having to lease it's new facilities**)


*Especially as all the TVL initially goes to the government before the BBC as a broadcaster get a penny back as a grant, in a sum that just happens to be similar to the amount originally collected (minus any excess above what the government has agreed is to go to the BBC, or should go on other projects).

**IIRC the BBC is not allowed to owe more than something like £100 million (probably a figure set decades ago), and building a modern studio complex costs many times that.

System

Nilrem wrote: »

Or more realistically, because:

A: The BBC's remit is set out by the government

Which is broken all the time like its supposed to be impartial yet its climate agenda is clear enough for everyone to know

Nilrem wrote: »

, that includes the way the BBC should be funded

Because hardly anyone would pay for the BBC given a choice unlike Sky

Nilrem wrote: »

, the limitations of the BBC's service (which has led to a lot of BBC services being dropped when commercial companies complained about the BBC hurting their market

What about the commercial stations the BBC owns, UKTV

Nilrem wrote: »

The government also instruct the BBC to collect the TVL (and the BBC do it in almost exactly the same way the post office did for most of the TVL's life).

It's quite easy to keep passing the buck isn't it. Say do you still spend lots of time at Digitalspy defending the BBC?

Nilrem wrote: »

B: It would change the service from being a public broadcaster free at the point of reception to a subscription based one.

Huh how is it Free when everyone who wishes to watch "live" feeds has to pay them first, I smell PR again..............Fishburn Hedges?

Nilrem wrote: »

C: It would require a lot more money to administer, require tens of millions of receivers to be upgraded (and cards) - and that's if you just went for one "authorised" receiver per house.

The BBC could give them away free as Sky and Cable do, if the BBC is as great as you'd like people to believe

Nilrem wrote: »

IIRC Sky and VM pay not so small fortunes just for the updates to their encryption systems

Not really but it suites the PR stance to make the BBC TV Licence look great doesn't it

Nilrem wrote: »

Rather like the fairly silly "BBC tax inspectors" and what not, when it's Capita operating under a contract to the BBC, who have been instructed to collect the TVL by the government*

Wrong again, they've been instructive to do it by the BBC because the BBC doesn't want the niave public to think they're anything to do with TV Licensing........................we both now they are one of the same though don't we

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4/

Nilrem wrote: »

So ultimately the BBC couldn't make changes to how it's funded.

They have a huge say on it but once again ignore the facts

Nilrem wrote: »

nor ever have loans etc of more than a very limited sum

Or the Soft Loans they get from the EU, once again breaking the charter!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1523646/Corporations-100m-loan-from-EU-bank.html

Nilrem wrote: »

*Especially as all the TVL initially goes to the government

Noticed how he blames everything bah the BBC. Check his posting history at digitalspy and you might see the bigger picture and why he defends the BBC to the hilt

Nilrem wrote: »

**IIRC the BBC is not allowed to owe more than something like £100 million (probably a figure set decades ago), and building a modern studio complex costs many times that.

You know a lot about the inner working of the BBC to don't you

Kurtis_Blue

TheUnwise1 wrote: »

You've been defending your colleague for two pages who claimed the BBC TV Licence funds it which isn't true, two pages!. So as I stated its the broadcasters that fund it :doh:

In other words if the BBC TV Licence was abolished it wouldn't make any difference :dance:

Morning:
Clearly you are mistaken again, and once again EVERYTHING you write is incorrect.

I never defended anyone.
I have no colleagues at the BBC
I never claimed the TVL funds anything.

I simply stated you were incorrect in that SDN or Crown Castle own the transmitters.
I said this because you were incorrect and have no understanding of the things you post.

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

Rather like the fairly silly "BBC tax inspectors" and what not, when it's Capita operating under a contract to the BBC, who have been instructed to collect the TVL by the government* (who probably quite like the way the BBC is blamed for the TVL, as opposed to the government who require it's collection, and authorize the methods allowed in the contract).

I've personally exchanged letters with the Minister at the DCMS responsible for broadcasting on the issue of the lawfulness of LF enforcement. He made it quite clear (just as his Labour predecessors did) that Government considers that the BBC's law enforcement duties are covered by BBC editorial independence, and they would never consider interfering.

This is clearly a dangerous, stupid and short-sighted view - ALL law enforcement MUST ultimately be accountable to the public via Government.

I'm genuinely baffled as to why he (as a Conservative minister) would think/say such a thing.

However, it's clear that whatever is going on is way more complicated than you would have us believe. The BBC in setting policy, targets, budgets, contracts, and owning the systems design is in a pivotal role (especially if there is little or no Government scrutiny). To suggest otherwise is pure misinformation.

BTW, I don't recall anyone calling TVL field staff "BBC tax inspectors".

wiogs

Cornucopia wrote: »

I've personally exchanged letters with the Minister at the DCMS responsible for broadcasting on the issue of the lawfulness of LF enforcement. He made it quite clear (just as his Labour predecessors did) that Government considers that the BBC's law enforcement duties are covered by BBC editorial independence, and they would never consider interfering.

This is clearly a dangerous, stupid and short-sighted view - ALL law enforcement MUST ultimately be accountable to the public via Government.

I'm genuinely baffled as to why he (as a Conservative minister) would think/say such a thing.

However, it's clear that whatever is going on is way more complicated than you would have us believe. The BBC in setting policy, targets, budgets, contracts, and owning the systems design is in a pivotal role (especially if there is little or no Government scrutiny). To suggest otherwise is pure misinformation.

BTW, I don't recall anyone calling TVL field staff "BBC tax inspectors".

See post #4

Cornucopia

wiogs wrote: »

See post #4

I stand corrected.

To be accurate, I guess we should call them the BBC's contractors.

Nilrem

TheWise1 wrote: »

You know a lot about the inner working of the BBC to don't you

And you've started with the insinuations.


I don't know a "lot" about the inner workings of the BBC, well any more than any one who cares to do some basic reading and comprehension does (the fact I've been mildly interested in broadcasting for a number of years, and quite interested in licensing and rights issues probably helps - it tends to mean I actually pay some attention to what is said in articles covering program production etc).
It's public record and (from memory) came up when they were talking about the move from broadcasting house, as well as at various other times.

wongataa

TheWise1 wrote: »

Your BBC colleague insisted the BBC TV Licence funds the Muxes (transmitters), I proved this wasn't true. You have now twisted the argument because I proved you were liars. The Muxes are transmitters (intelligent people know this).

Muxes is short for multiplexes. Digital TV channels are grouped in multiplexes, each of which hold several channels. These multiplexes are broadcast by the transmitters.

Multiplexes (muxes) are digital data. Transmitters are towers with aerials that transmit this digital data.