NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/video/satellit/7294

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.6 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: rec.video.satellite
Path: sparky!uunet!news.mentorg.com!mentorg.com!philip
From: [e-mail] (Philip Peake)
Subject: Re: BBC WSTV
Sender: [e-mail] (News User)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:50:21 GMT
References:  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: sun_shine.mentorg.com
Organization: Mentor Graphics
Keywords:
Followup-To:
Lines: 53

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron A Uitz) writes:
|> >BBC WSTV is currently News and documentary oriented, since the interesting
|> >(read saleable) programs are picked up by BBC enterprises, and sold
|> >individualy.
|>
|> I disagree with your assumption.  You've no doubt noticed that CNN is
|> news oriented and seems to be quite "saleable"; it's picked up around the
|> world.  CNN is also a private for-profit entity.  So I see nothing wrong
|> with the BBC setting up BBC WSTV as a profit oriented market-driven
|>  enterprise, to the relief of the beleaguered British taxpayers.  Imagine
|> the United States government instituting a television tax akin to the
|> British tv receiver tax in order to subsidize the marketing of Hollywood
|> programs overseas!

Either I need to write more clearly, or you need to read more carefully
(maybe both ...) but, what I MEANT, which was probably clear if you left the
extract in context, was that the BBC produces lots of interesting programs
aimed primarily at domestic consumption. Many of these would be interesting
to a world-wide audience. That audience will NOT see them on WSTV, because
they are saleable, in a way that news services are not - news is just that,
a SERVICE, which is valuless within a very short time. Well made general
entertainment is a definate product, which cn be stored on a shelf, and sold
at any time.

There are VERY few British people who would want to see the BBC go commercial.
The TV license is a (reasonably) fair means of raising the revenue - it used
to be eminently fair, but with the arrival of sat. TV, there is an argument
that people may want to watch lots of programs and NOT BBC at all, so why
should they pay the license - the answer is that the license is used to pay
for things other than BBC program production. It pays for (for example)
the maintaianance of the transmitters, for fill-in tranmsmitters (carrying
BBC AND commercial TV) where pure market forces would not be sufficient
to provide a service. All transmitters are co-sited, and the channels grouped
so that one antenna (without rotator) is sufficient etc. etc.

You display a sad lack of understanding of the rest of the world - and the usual
American assumption that the US system is best - for example "the beleaguered
British taxpayers", - are you aware that income tax in Britain is MUCH lower
than it is here in the US ? Yes, I know it USED to be higher, and Americans USED
to point to it, and make snide remarks about "that's what you get with a nationa
health service" - well, the health service is still there, along with free
education etc, and America taxes you more - so which is the right system ?

Market driven systems are wonderful - if you are at the right end of them - just
remember that not everyone can be at the right end !

The reason why the BBC is so sucessfull, why it has a better reputation
and program quality than CNN (for example) is that it doesn't have to worry
about "the market" - and isn't it strange that people actually like to
watch BBC productions, even when offered a batch of "market correct"
lowest-common-denominator garbage ?

Philip