h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

... is a "moot" point. The BBC already advertises very heavilly, and the fee can no longer be justified in any way, shape, or form. They advertise their own products on the BBC, and don't break ITC rulings by saying "other things like this are available", although how they get away with advertising BBC branded videos is beyond me. Many BBC programmes contain product placement (which they shouldn't AT ALL if the rules are to be adhered to). However, much worse than this is the fact that the BBC own all, or controlling interest, in a number of commercial channels. This is giving them an ever increasing income, whereas their programming and acquisitions are getting worse by the year. The situation really has to improve soon. I cannot see the justification in charging every household well over £100 per year, especially as digital TV may mean that eventually you won't even get BBC unless you specifically subscribe to it (the fact that the government is attempting to make people with digital TV pay an addition to their fee is even worse). Lastly, thankfully the idea to charge _per_ television never happened - that would have really irritated people!

Not sure where you get the idea that the BBC has a practise of product placement. As far as I understand it, this means a company paying directly or indirectly for an on-screen shot of their product - something you can't do on the beeb. There may be commercial products in view on the beeb, but when was the last time anyone spent an entire day without seeing any commercial products? Realism does not mean a sell-out.
However, I agree with you about the selling of the BBC's own products (which are sold by the commercial arm - i.e. a different company).

Profits from BBC product sales (e.g videos teletubbies etc)are ploughed back into programmming, so if they didnt advertise then the licence fee would be even higher. The licence fee has the added advantage that there is no pressure on the beeb from advertisers demanding ITV (ugh! :-p) style programming.

The point is that in this time where one effectively gets to choose which channels they have, one should be able to choose whether or not to get the BBC. If not, a licence fee shouldn't be required.

Hahahahaha!

Like that'll *ever* happen.

The Beeb would be unable to provide a high degree of local programming and educational programmming if it didn't have the resource of the license fee. The BBC without the licence fee would be the TV equivelent of the NHS.

If the BBC did start to carry advertising think of the effect it would have on the commercial channels, There is a finite pool of advertising revenue available and so a large amount of their existing revenue would be split with the BBC.
Result both the BBC and the independant companies would have less money to spend on programmes.
Would this lead to us viewers getting a better deal?

What about the national lottery, this is a blatant commercial venture, unless you hold the view that it is a stupidity tax - a bit like a bet on England to win Euro 2000 (guilty).

On the news yesterday, there was a story about a bunch of people with too much time on their hands that have been given thousands of pounds worth of lottery money to sail a stone from Wales to Stonehenge. To their great surprise, the stone weighing several tonnes was threatening to sink the two flimsy boats on which it was perched, so it had to be jettisoned, and is now at the bottom of the sea. This bunch of geniuses are now planning to retrieve it from the bottom of the sea thanks to the national lottery and their lack of anything better to do.

I would like to thank the BBC for promoting the national lottery, but I probably wont. I'll evade paying my TV license and claim to be a political prisoner when they lock me up, or flee the country looking for political asylum when they threaten to lock me up.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS UNITE - flip to the other channel or make a cup of tea when adverts come on, and don't buy the advertisers' products if you hate their hard sell tactics. AND don't tolerate paying twice for anything, for example, ADVERTS IN PAY PER VIEW PROGRAMMES, this is daylight robbery.

The National Lottery was setup to raise money for good causes.
Therefore the BBC is performing a public service by broadcasting it.(Even though the Birtists were so stupid they actually paid for the right to broadcast it.)
PS:- If your seriously thinking of not paying your TV License just remember this- They know who has bought a TV License and who hasn't. So they know where you live.

I don't care

Sorry, I shouldn't be flippant. But I really do not think that giving single individuals millions of pounds every week is a good cause. It is increasing the gap between rich and poor. If there were more winners then it might be better. Also, the 'good casues' that you are talking about are incredibly dubious. Also, camelot makes a hefty profit, and like you say the BBC payed for the right to broadcast it.

Only 1% of the total revenue of the lottery goes to camelot, about 40% goes as prizes ,20% as tax and 39% is for good causes. If there wasn't a lottery most of this money would be spent by people on drink and cigarettes. If you think that's a better cause than funding dialeses machines and childrens wards then you are, frankly stupid.
As for making more winners, that would reduce the amount of money available for charities unless you reduced the amount that each person could win (Which is actually a good idea but diffucult to enforce 'cause of syndicates and the alike.)
On the subject of the wealth gap- most people who play the lottery are working class therefore most of the prizes goto working class people so it won't have much affect on the gap (except to reduce it.)

Rehash a lone voice in defence of the Beeb

Most of the causes the lottery gives money to are good causes but as you said Coz many are a waste of money. It might be intresting to make a list of all the dubious causes people can find. Perhaps give it it's own forum?

You say that Camelot "only" gets 1% of the lottery stake money. That may be so but it is still one heck of a lot of money when Richard Branson said that he would take no profit at all. On that subject does anybody know why it wasn't given to him in the first place? The real reason not political hype please!!

This is an old BBC argument that, quite frankly, has been proven to be totally without basis already. Think for a minute how many cable and satelite channels there are. Most, if not all, of them carry some advertising and some are even up to american levels where the adverts run longer than the programme! Has anybody noticed less adverts being made or the quality deteriorating generally? (I know that some are total rubbish but there will always be rubbish adverts and there always has been). I'm sorry but that is not a valid argument for the BBC to not carry, at least some, advertising and take the burdon off of the license payer. I for one would be much happier if the license was less and they had adverts just between shows not during. I'm sure this is a viable alternative, acceptable to all.

Well, according to Mr. Dyke, there is a fair probability that one of the BBC channels will have advertising a la ITV within a couple of years (probably BBC1, with 2 being reserved for news and documentaries). Within five years, all of them may have advertising. But does this mean no fee? Nope; according to Dyke, there would be a 'nominal reduction' in the fee. Hmm...

If that is the case then why don't they just rename it as "TV tax"!!!

According to "Prvate Eye" It is extremely unlikely that Branson won't make a profit on the National Lottery if he wins the contract. Branson has a habit of making seriously misleading claims when bidding for a franchise eg. "Virgin Trains" where he said he would cut fares, overcrowding, delays, run more trains etc. (He has achieved none of these.)

Back to the BBC.
You seem to be forgetting that the BBC is more than just a couple of TV channels. The BBC also runs numerous charities eg. 'Children in Need' and 'The time bank'. It creates educational information packs for schools, encourages many fitness drives (Can you see ITV spending money on sports equipment for inner city schools?) It broadcasts many charity appeals free of charge eg 'Comic Relief'. It has the most comprehensive and objective News service in the world (In the past it has heard foreign News before MI6). It broadcasts the 'World Service' (So important that many countries jam the frequency to prevent their citizens finding out whats really going on.)It offers free internet courses and runs several radio channels all without adverts. And to cap it all off it's the one broadcaster that can afford to take risks with imaginative programming eg The Young Ones, Dr Who, Monty Python etc etc ad nauseum.
I'm GLAD the BBC is funded through a tax like system. They couldn't afford the above unless they showed wall to wall advertising.

You said:

>> The National Lottery was setup to raise money for good causes.

This is a big lie. It was actually set up to plug gaps in Government funding without needing to increase taxes. The government at the time had a huge hole in the budget, and it was either a lottery or raise taxes.

And yes, it is a stupidity tax. Something like 40% of young people in a recent survey said their ambition in life was to win the lottery. In the mean time, presumably, they will imitate the actions of the Royles.

The lottery should be scrapped, as the last lottery was, and for exactly the same reasons.

Has anyone noticed the quality deteriorating? Yes! Look at Channel 5 (no, OK, don't actually look at it, even if you could, but check the schedule). Their slice of the advertising revenue pie is too small to enable them to make good programmes, so the show a lot of rubbish. But even that has reduced slightly the funding available for ITV and C4, with the result that we now have wall-to-wall Vorderman, "reality TV" (i.e. extremely cheap TV - one camera crew, no script, no paid actors) and endless cooking, gardening and DIY.

I sat down last night to watch TV at 8pm, a very unusual occurrence (I'm not well, you understand) and I noticed that I hadn't seen any of the adverts on ITV before. That's an indication of just how attractive their schedule is at present. The Bill was the least atrocious thing on, and for the rest of the evening it was BBC1 and BBC2 (and of course the unmissable Graham Norton on C4).

ITV is getting steadily worse.

I have to respond to this in detail.

> Only 1% of the total revenue of the lottery goes to camelot

That's 1% of one HUGE pile of money - not very "only" if you ask me!

> about 40% goes as prizes ,20% as tax and 39% is for good causes.
> If there wasn't a lottery most of this money would be spent by
> people on drink and cigarettes.

Or food or their children. The insidious danger of the lottery is it promises fabulous wealth, but poeple are blinded to the eatrocious odds. The only people guaranteed to win are Camelot.

> If you think that's a better cause than funding dialeses machines
> and childrens wards then you are, frankly stupid.

That's what the NHS are for, and the government shouldn't be using the lottery to fund this stuff. It should come out of general taxation. One way to give hospitals an instant huge budget increase would be to allow them to reclaim VAT. Private hospitals can reclaim VAT, the NHS can't. How stupid is that?

> On the subject of the wealth gap- most people who play the lottery
> are working class therefore most of the prizes goto working class
> people so it won't have much affect on the gap (except to reduce
> it.)

But only 40% goes back in prizes, so the nett result will be to increase the wealth gap. That's why the original lottery was stopped; it was increasing poverty amongst the already poor.