I really can't see how this deal benefits people in any way, after all the political or corporate dealing, its always the majority of people that lose out.
What about the fact that all other broadcasters viewers have already funded the BBC even if there not watching it, that is a massive example of monopolisation.
If BBC was private entity and it bought the entire TV rights for UK so that anyone who even wants to watch TV has to pay them before even switching to a Non BBC channel would be called monopolistion, just because BBC is a Public entity doesn't change the fact one bit.
Like I said, look in a dictionary. 'Monopoly' doesn't apply here.
The BBC doesn't own and control all TV and Radio boradcasting in the UK. There is healthy competition between the BBC and various commercial broadcasting companies.
It's similar to education, health service etc. In the UK, you are free to go to a commercial 'private' vendor for these services, but some of the tax you pay will still be used to fund public health and education services. This benefits society as a whole.
IMO the BBC should be funded through Tax revenue to avoid all the issues that have arrived with the growth of the internet and the diversification of digital media technology.
Then the argument would be clearer and more honest. Instead of:
"is it fair that folks who watch Sky should have to pay for the BBC?"
the question would be:
"Does a broadcasting service that attempts to provide for the viewer rather than for commercial interests benefit our society and it's culture?"
I would say yes, and that it's worth paying for that benefit, even if you pay for and watch Sky. In the same way that it's worth paying towards the the state funded education system even if you send your kids to a private school - you still benefit indirectly (e.g. fewer people will be making up words 'monopolistion' and misusing others in internet discussions
)col
Tell me then, if someone where to watch tv would BBC be benifitted regardless if that person will watch BBC or not?
They make you pay them in Order to watch tv Aka control you to pay them in order to watch any other broadcaster, now if that isn't a monoply then what is?
The term 'force' can also mean control in this sence.
They make you pay them in Order to watch tv Aka control you to pay them in order to watch any other broadcaster, now if that isn't a monoply then what is?
The term 'force' can also mean control in this sence.
Monopoly means that there is only ONE(1) specific individual or an enterprise that is the only supplier of a particular kind of product or service.
If BBC was the only channel possible to watch from tv that would mean it had a monopoly.
Yes there's competition but any viewership and profit they recieve will be in the BBC hands first, also due to there massive income stream through public funding they can take shows away that are highly viewed and profitable from channels who don't get the privledge.
Also the fact you have to pay for a tv licence in the first place is also another reason why no one would be willing to pay for subscription tv where in countrys such as Australia where free to air literally means it subscription tv isn't such an issue, and it's a much more better market for it.
Also the fact you have to pay for a tv licence in the first place is also another reason why no one would be willing to pay for subscription tv where in countrys such as Australia where free to air literally means it subscription tv isn't such an issue, and it's a much more better market for it.
No, the BBC benefits when someone owns one or more TVs (assuming they are law abiding and not leaches), not when they watch it. And when the BBC benefits, we (British people) benefit - we are all stakeholders of sorts. So it's all good.
According to the Oxford Dictionary: A monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"
The BBC does not exclusively possess or control the supply of TV or Radio Broadcasting in the UK therefor it does not have a Monopoly. End of story. Doesn't matter how you spin it, it's not a monopoly. Go find another word.
As to your other point, they don't force anyone to pay them anything. However, if you decide to own a TV in the UK, you are obliged to pay a licence fee because it's the law, you don't do that, you get into trouble. It's a pretty widespread approach to funding state broadcasting. It's not ideal, tax would be a better and fairer way.
It is really sad having to share formula 1 on different networks and just describes the commercial value F1 holds against networks. I mean, I have no problems with switching to sky for half the season as I also am subscribed to that, but it is a bummer for a lot of fans who are only relating on bbc.
I have subscribed to sky about a year ago as they are the only network showing cricket and most of the sports I want.
I have subscribed to sky about a year ago as they are the only network showing cricket and most of the sports I want.
I'm just pissed because they are messing with the best thing in years. We have it on the BBC, so there are no commercials, we have Martin Brundle and David Coulthard, arguably the best duo since Murry and Martin. More then anything, we are losing Martin and David for half the season, and I just don't know why they felt the need to do this. Just when it get's to be great, they have ruin it.
The license fee has long been referred to as a monopoly. Read the definition you posted: "control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service".
Sure I don't have to pay a license fee, but if I want to watch TV I have to, and there's only one broadcaster I can pay it to. ITV can't offer a cut-price license fee, Sky can't include a license fee in their basic package. Nor can they compete to purchase the rights to do so.
It's a TV tax that you have to pay to watch any broadcaster, but only goes into the pockets of one.
Well, if you don't have sky, you may be loosing Martin completely. There has been some suggestion that Sky have offered him a contract to join their Formula 1 commentary team. Combined with that, Martin has said on his twitter account that he has to look at all of his possible options for 'work'. If sky are offering him a significant amount of money, to cover all of the races, then I do not see why Martin would not move to Sky. Prior to the Sky deal he would have been going to all of the races anyway, so it isn't like there would be significantly increased traveling.
Possibly, but by people who are against non-commercial broadcasting. 'Monopoly' is a powerful and emotive term. In this case it is being used incorrectly and unfairly in an attempt to negatively influence peoples attitudes.
I could refer to you as a fish, but that doesn't make it true - even if I keep doing it for years.
However, license revenue it is not ultimately controlled by the BBC (as would be required for the 'monopoly' definition). It is controlled by our government. There was a plan a few years ago to partly fund channel4 via the licence fee when they ran into financial difficulties. This was eventually scrapped as they managed to find other ways to deal with these difficulties.
There's no reason in principal why in the future other organisations should not be funded or part funded from licence fee revenue if they could present a good enough case to justify this approach.
========
I really hope Brundle stays with the beeb
... further to add that without evil Mr Murdoch the BBC would have had to drop F1 coverage all together.
If they happen to also take the whole BBC gang with them, minus Eddie, I'll be quite happy.
(5haz)
DELETED
by 5haz
Don't be too worried it's only for a year, unroll a broadcaster buys the rights be it sky or who knows.
i dont think it eas the fault of murdoch i think it was the poison dwaf who is curing F1(bernie)
Turns out the BBC didn't want ITV or C4 getting rights (monopolies often behave in this manner). So it was either a complete abandonment of coverage or Sky coming in and saving the day. 
Please check what monopoly means from a dictionary and stop using it in this situation. It means one producer or supplier who has total control of the trade of a certain area. BBC is not the only tv company in Britain so it can't have a monopoly. No matter how it's funded. If your nation supported Nokia it would not mean Nokia had a monopoly in cell phones. BBC does have an advantage over other tv channels but that doesn't make a monopoly.
Monopoly is often a word associated with companies like the BBC, which certainly DO have a monopoly on the licence fee and public service broadcasting. Considering C4 and ITV have to adhere to certain public service rules, you'd think they would have benefit from a licence fee? NO they don't. The term 'monopoly' couldn't be MORE apt. The BBC have a monopoly on the licence fee... FACT! Though there shouldn't be a 'media tax' to fund a bias broadcaster in the first place in a free society.
They behave exactly like a monopoly because they are one as demonstrated in the latest turn of events regarding F1 on BBC.
They behave exactly like a monopoly because they are one as demonstrated in the latest turn of events regarding F1 on BBC.
In the latest turn of events they behaved like someone with a contract to broadcast something and they were looking for a partner to do it with. If you were not so interested in cherry picking quotes to suit your own agenda you will have seen Bernie basically say that C4 had no interest, and there isn't even any hint of interest from ITV.
The BBC do not "have a monopoly on the licence fee". For that to be the case, they would need to own and control the licence fee neither of which is the case. They are funded from TV licence revenue, but they are significantly restricted in what they are allowed to broadcast as a result - they do not have ultimate control over this. They do what they are told by the government who actually do control the license fee.
It's no surprise though to see you spouting emotive phrases like "free society" in your defense. What a load of manipulative marketing bull that is. The more power you take from government and institutions like the BBC who are answerable to us, and give it to the likes of Murdoch, the less free it gets (it's never been very free, and is steadily becoming less so). The phrase itself "free society" is an oxymoron anyway.
if private is less free how come it's the governments that force you to pay taxes, think about it for one second before your liberal hippy brain has a meltdown.
The term force is a key word here. Private companys have to adhere to laws the GOVERMENT creates, and remember that.
did the private industry put CCTV cameras on every corner street of the uk?
I mean that's free soceity.
Governments have constitution.
Private industry did put up a lot of CCTV cameras, although I'm not sure why that's relevant - either for or against my argument
What point are you trying to make?
BBC & SKY to Share F1 in the UK from 2012
(126 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG