BBc to launch FREESAT service .. its own non-subscription satellite

[ntscuser]

Perhaps because the TV companies may want to save money on the provision and maintenance of expensive transmitters by shutting them down. The government would love that too as it would give them more bandwidth to sell.

The existing transmitters in the UK will only just have finished being upgraded to digital by 2012 so there is no chance of them being shut down anytime "in the near future". Assuming they would have to wait until the lifetime of a TV bought new in 2012 has expired, say eight years, it would be at least 2020 before anything like that could happen.

[Duchess]

But wouldn't that be about the right timeframe for BT etc. to get the whole country wired with optical fibre rather than using copper. I certainly seem to recall someone mentioning that there is already a requirement for all new house construction to have fibre installed. In addition there is a move afoot to replace existing telephone systems with VoIP.

[ntscuser]

But wouldn't that be about the right timeframe for BT etc. to get the whole country wired with optical fibre rather than using copper.

To what purpose? There is already a digital cable running past my back door but hardly anyone who lives here is connected to it because it is ludicrously expensive. An optical fibre will be more expensive and even fewer people will bother to connect. "Virgin Media" (fomerly NTL-Telwest) appears to cutting back on expenditure rather than investing while I supect BT is more interested in ADSL2 than fibre so as to wring the last ounce of value out of its existing network for its shareholders.

[Duchess]

BT is talking about TV supplied via broadband, another area where they can make more money for their shareholders. To do that will need more bandwidth than the existing infrastructure can handle. Anyway Virgin Media use fibre for the areas they cover, which includes where I live. There is fibre to the end of the road then coax to the houses which will handle anything that could possibly needed for future expansion and their service isn't that expensive.

Another thought, relating to the original topic on this thread the BBC could shut down the terrestrial transmitters if they do get the satellite systems working.

[ntscuser]

BT is talking about TV supplied via broadband, another area where they can make more money for their shareholders. To do that will need more bandwidth than the existing infrastructure can handle.

And why would anyone pay BT even more than they do now to watch bootleg-quality pictures when they can already receive up to 30 MPEG-2 channels absolutely free?

Anyway Virgin Media use fibre for the areas they cover, which includes where I live. There is fibre to the end of the road then coax to the houses which will handle anything that could possibly needed for future expansion and their service isn't that expensive.

Since VM dropped the Sky package, existing subscribers have threatened to cancel in droves unless they got a huge reduction in their monthly fee and when their friends and neighbour found that out, they have demanded the same terms for themselves. VM's "service" and asking price are now a huge joke.

Another thought, relating to the original topic on this thread the BBC could shut down the terrestrial transmitters if they do get the satellite systems working.

They could indeed if the government let them which is never going to happen

[Duchess]

And why would anyone pay BT even more than they do now to watch bootleg-quality pictures when they can already receive up to 30 MPEG-2 channels absolutely free?

They seem to think they can compete with the likes of VM which is shoving TV down their lines to a heck of a lot of households in the UK. As for VM's existing service, yes they are having problems but I'm not sure whether that's them being too tight to pay or Sky being too greedy. But yes they should give an automatic reduction in the sub until they get it sorted.

They could indeed if the government let them which is never going to happen

Errr! Why not? the govmt will still get their tax from the licence fee, unless they are using the terrestrial transmitters for nefarious purposes that we don't know about (I wouldn't be surprised).

[ntscuser]

They could indeed if the government let them which is never going to happen

Errr! Why not? the govmt will still get their tax from the licence fee, unless they are using the terrestrial transmitters for nefarious purposes that we don't know about (I wouldn't be surprised).

Because the government has spent the last few years urging people to upgrade to terrestrial DTV so it would be seen as a major betrayal and guaranteed vote loser. There are also many voters who live at addreses where satellite reception is not possible.

On the subject of "tax", the money collected from the license fee plus some additional taxpayers' money goes entirely to the BBC whereas three-quarters of all the money spent on TV advertising goes directly to the treasury.

[Radixmind]

i'll wade in again, probably foolishly, given i got the population estimate for the UK wrong in my last post

mh2360 said

There are around 28 million households in the UK.

So £131.50 x 28,000,000 = £3,682,000,000 (7 Billion US dollars!) a year.

OK so not all of it goes to the BBC, but most TV companies in the world would kill to get even half of that. And the BBC say it's not enough...

Shoot! seven billion dollars! thats a hell of a lot!...isnt it?

well, no. i did some research and it seems the NCTA is saying that it's expected revenue gathered from it's Cable TV customers will be $74.7 billion this year. and that's not including the $26.9 billion gained through advertising revenue. now that's a lot of money.

running a national broadcast network is not cheap. £3.6 billion isnt going to go far when the technology and infrastructure is changing fast and you're trying to keep up. admittedly, the BBC wastes a lot of money, but sometimes it's difficult to know what is an economy and what isnt - in the early days of broadcast, tapes were regularly re-used, losing hundreds of old recordings that could be fetching the Beeb a mint in todays DVD market. who knew?

paying for stuff is never popular, and paying for stuff you dont use is NEVER popular - but we do it all the while, and it's one of the economic cornerstones of modern western society. whether it's subscriptions, licensing, taxation, or insurance. everyone pays, so everyone gets something they want. just not everything.

[mh2360]

The BBC always complain that they dont get enough money and we see an increase in the TV License fee every year. How much revenue does the BBC get from overseas sales, DVDs and merchandising? They must have made a small fortune from the Teletubbies alone (may I, on behalf of the rest of the UK apologise for them BTW ).

[DereX888]

The BBC always complain that they dont get enough money and we see an increase in the TV License fee every year. How much revenue does the BBC get from overseas sales, DVDs and merchandising? They must have made a small fortune from the Teletubbies alone (may I, on behalf of the rest of the UK apologise for them BTW ).

APologies accepted

Anyways... Perhaps BBC have unions?
Any unionized work environment is a hell of a burden for employers (that would mean YOU - the subscription payers) and a heaven for employees
I.e. in my area the unionized schools pay $25/hr to god-damn janitors (for start!), so no wonder my compulsory local school's support portion of the property tax is so high...

[RabidDog]

Unions are the only protection normal people have from the capitalist running dogs. Long live the revolution.

Any unionized work environment is a hell of a burden for employers

it is, having to give the workers holidays and paid maternity leave and annual rises, even a living wage fergawdsake! A real drain on profits and share bonuses.

Ken Lay Enron Worldcom Walmart Sweatshop Eisner Stock options

[BJ_M]

Unions are the only protection normal people have from the capitalist running dogs. Long live the revolution.

Any unionized work environment is a hell of a burden for employers

it is, having to give the workers holidays and paid maternity leave and annual rises, even a living wage fergawdsake! A real drain on profits and share bonuses.

Ken Lay Enron Worldcom Walmart Sweatshop Eisner Stock options

oh come on -- you can't be serious .. Alan Mulally really needed the money bad last year as he only got 9 million from boeing in the first half of 2006......

Ford CEO paid $39.1 million for four months
Exec’s compensation comes after automaker (Ford) lost $12.7 billion in 2006

Alan Mulally, Ford Motor Co.’s new president and chief executive officer, received compensation valued at $39.1 million during his four months on the job last year, according to an analysis of a federal regulatory filing made Thursday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17965096/

[dvd3500]

Folks,
If the money really was an issue the shareholders and the board would not allow it. It doesn't make economic sense.
It is completely immoral and unethical and not mention fattening and makes white clothes look greyish but but hey....

[ntscuser]

It is not an issue in this case since the BBC pays its staff only half of what they would earn working for a commercial company.

[DereX888]

Unions are the only protection normal people have from the capitalist running dogs. Long live the revolution.

Any unionized work environment is a hell of a burden for employers

it is, having to give the workers holidays and paid maternity leave and annual rises, even a living wage fergawdsake! A real drain on profits and share bonuses.

Ken Lay Enron Worldcom Walmart Sweatshop Eisner Stock options

You've got to be kidding :O
Union are needed in the THIRD WORLD countries, where all those capitalist pigs exploit everyone and everything for pennies a day, but not in the western countries!
Your "only protection normal people have from the capitalist running dogs" has mutated 30-50 years ago into legalized extortion groups.
Tell me again that the unionized janitors at my local public schools are worth $30/hr thanks to their unionized extortion of public monies?
I bet most of yous here don't make half their money, regardless of having higher education than they
Yeah, long live revolution... LOL mob rules.