Sunday, 27 April 2008

Christopher England <...> said:
So, what you are effectively saying to the millions (over half the UK,
wasn't it?) who currently chose to listen to one of the national
networks is "Tough titty! I'm taking your radio station away and
replacing it with a station that might include something for you but
only at set times of the day" – erm, a bit like how the old Light
Programme had to treat pop music fans. Blimey, you're going to be
popular with your new modern day re-enactment of the passing of the
Marine Offences Act!

It's not a case of being popular, I do not believe an organistaion, funded by a tax should have a dominate position with no commercial pressure. Nationlisation has never created a well run organisation and that is basically how the BBC is run, they do not have any commercial pressures as such but are allowed to compete unfairly against commercial ventures by using the best frequencies. Why should Radio Four be available in London on FM/LW and MW. No other station is allowed that, how can that be fair?
 

Radio’s One and Two were set-up to replace the Offshore stations of the
sixties, do we really need them to carry on doing this now?

Yes we do. Quite simply, they are two specialist interest services that
are not provided by the commercial sector. There's not a commercial
equivalent anywhere.

The reason there is no equivalent is because we do not have a national commercial FM station to compete with it, the only one that is allowed has to provide a Classical music service.

I see you have swallowed the Goverment stance only the BBC can provide the best entertainment, still after 40 years Auntie know best thats why we own can supply 4 national FM networks and the commercial stations are allowed one

Sad,

Steve

Quoting a previous Stephen Sullivan contribution:-

Blimey, you're going to be
popular with your new modern day re-enactment of the passing of the
Marine Offences Act!

It's not a case of being popular, I do not believe an organistaion,
funded by a tax should have a dominate position with no commercial
pressure.

There is nothing now to stop the commercial sector 'take-on' Radios 1 and 2. Indeed, as an example the 'One Network' from GCap could be programmed to musically take-on Radio 1 with no problem from Ofcom, even if it couldn't exactly do the talkie bits to the same level. However, what the commercial sector does instead is go for a much lower and cheaper form of programming aimed at those who don't want to actually listen to the radio but just have it on in the background.

Thusly, were you to remove Radios 1 and 2 from the BBC you would have removed quality music and culture radio from the UK that people actually listen to. The commercial sector would never bother trying to replace it. We'd be back to 1964 all over again with people frustrated by the lack of choice.

The reason there is no equivalent is because we do not have a national
commercial FM station to compete with it, the only one that is allowed
has to provide a Classical music service.

Ah, but that's not quite true. The commercial sector hasn't sold or operated as anything other than a single national or near-national network for at least a decade or so. GCap's 'One Network', the nearest thing to Radio 1, is sold commercially as one station. It networks more and more programmes as if it is one station. One could argue the reverse to what you are arguing in that it actually has an advantage over Radio 1 because it is not only a quasi-national network, but it also has local/regional opt outs which Radio 1 doesn't. And yet its programming doesn't touch the BBC's.

I see you have swallowed the Goverment stance only the BBC can provide
the best entertainment,

Not at all. I'm still waiting for the commercial sector to respond with something that comes even slightly close to what the BBC provides. The simple fact is that it doesn't bother, which is why the BBC has such a high level of listenership across its radio output. Nobody is forced to listen to BBC radio, yet the majority do.
—
* Christopher England just said that *

Christopher England <...> said:
There is nothing now to stop the commercial sector 'take-on' Radios 1
and 2.

GCap is just one company that bought everything up using the poor radio set-up that successive Governments implemented. The set up in this country has helped us have the worse radio in the world.
 

Indeed, as an example the 'One Network' from GCap could be
programmed to musically take-on Radio 1 with no problem from Ofcom,if it couldn't exactly do the talkie bits to the same level.

But how could it compete on an equal level when they do not have 2 let alone 4 national FM licences. Ohh don't tell me that great leveller Digital radio, which has lead to the leading company that can't make any money out of it, being taken over by a foreign giant.

Thusly, were you to remove Radios 1 and 2 from the BBC you would have
removed quality music and culture radio from the UK that people actually
listen to.

But that's because they have no alternatives apart from one or two regional stations. Then again you are looking from a London point of view where we do have a choice, even though most of the stations are owned by the evil GCap who benefited from the bad set up that's been in place for years.

The reason there is no equivalent is because we do not have a national
commercial FM station to compete with it, the only one that is allowed
has to provide a Classical music service.

Ah, but that's not quite true. The commercial sector hasn't sold or
operated as anything other than a single national or near-national
network for at least a decade or so. GCap's 'One Network', the nearest
thing to Radio 1, is sold commercially as one station.

Can I pick this One Network up on an FM signal nationally then, please advise in which section of the band this is, 88–91? 91–93? 93–95? 97–99? or 100–102 perhaps?

I see you have swallowed the Government stance only the BBC can provide
the best entertainment,

Not at all. I'm still waiting for the commercial sector to respond with
something that comes even slightly close to what the BBC provides.

So am I, but if I was running a commercial network I would not launch it in the UK as you have a non commercial network whose resources are far superior to anything that a commercial company could offer, plus I would only get national coverage on a platform that is collapsing in front of our very eyes. This platform can only give you a coverage of audience the size of a big city anyway. Lets face it, the only other company entering on this platform is a commercial clone of the BBC, why do you think RTL got out of the UK radio market.

simple fact is that it doesn't bother, which is why the BBC has such a
high level of listenership across its radio output. Nobody is forced to
listen to BBC radio, yet the majority do.

I should state that I'm not anti BBC, I, like the majority listen to BBC radio, not exclusively but a large amount of my listening. I just think that the only reason everyone listens to the BBC is because they have not got a great choice of radio

Steve

Hans . <...> said:

Q_1_2_3_4_5_6 <...> said:
This 828 kHz-transmitter is still off air now. It is expected that next
Tuesday it will be back on air again with Arrow Classic Rock again too
and thereafter starts on the First of May with the Dutch spoken
"TalkRadio". Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands.

Do you have a source for that?

Hallo Hans (hwh)
No, but I think so. But read the press-release in the Dutch language on http://www.radio.nl/2003/home/medianieuws/010.archief/2008/04/130987.html Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Nnetherlands.

Hans . <...> said:

Q_1_2_3_4_5_6 <...> said:
This 828 kHz-transmitter is still off air now. It is expected that next
Tuesday it will be back on air again with Arrow Classic Rock again too
and thereafter starts on the First of May with the Dutch spoken
"TalkRadio". Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands.

Do you have a source for that?

Hallo Hans (hwh)
No, but I think so. But read the press-release in the Dutch language on http://www.radio.nl/2003/home/medianieuws/010.archief/2008/04/130987.html Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Nnetherlands.

Not that anybody visits here in order to vote, but just checking the voting malarkey works

Quoting a previous Stephen Sullivan contribution:-

GCap is just one company that bought everything up using the poor radio
set-up that successive Governments implemented. The set up in this
country has helped us have the worse radio in the world.

But imagine how much worse it would get were we to force the BBC to shut down its radio services.

GCap of course having now been assimilated by Global, making Global the major owner of nearly everything. Even GMG's Real, Century and Smooth brands are 'sold' advertising wise through Global/GCap. I assume the Heart brands and absolutely everything else, etc., will follow suit.

I don't see how a small indie station can seriously compete with that kind of power to attract national campaigns as revenue. Indeed, any new entrant would have to go cap in hand to Global/GCap to ask to be sold by them. So, I'm not sure how reducing the BBC's involvement in radio does anything but leave us with one big Borg. That's one big Borg and not even the BBC to bring us diversity. Well, that's worse than 1964!

We need the BBC to help protect radio's future, not just leave radio to the Borg, surely. The BBC demonstrates their commitment to specialist interest non-commercial radio, whilst the Borg demonstrates it has no commitment beyond doing things as cheaply as possible for maximum profit.

Indeed, as an example the 'One Network' from GCap could be
programmed to musically take-on Radio 1 with no problem from Ofcom,if it
couldn't exactly do the talkie bits to the same level.

But how could it compete on an equal level when they do not have 2 let
alone 4 national FM licences.

But the One Network is already effectively a single FM licence across most of England. There are similar networks across other parts of the UK. As everything gets assimilated into the giant Global Borg the network will become bigger.

Can I pick this One Network up on an FM signal nationally then, please
advise in which section of the band this is, 88–91? 91–93? 93–95?
97–99?
or 100–102 perhaps?

Well, a fair number are 95 – 97 I suppose!

if I was running a commercial network I would not launch it
in the UK as you have a non commercial network whose resources are far
superior to anything that a commercial company could offer,

So you don't believe that there are other commercially viable formats out there beyond the wallpaper formats or the BBC formats that you could chase? Or do you believe that a commercial radio venture can only ever replicate existing services?

plus I would
only get national coverage on a platform that is collapsing in front of
our very eyes.

Are you saying that the only format worth chasing requires national coverage? I suspect small is the next big.

—
* Christopher England just said that *

Just for future reference, and due to the fact I've never cast a vote on one of these poll thingies.

Where does one go, and how is a vote cast?

Andy

Quoting a previous Andy contribution:-

Just for future reference, and due to the fact I've never cast a vote on
one of these poll thingies.

Where does one go, and how is a vote cast?

www.anoraknation.com and it usually appears on the front page.

—
* Christopher England just said that *

Stephen Sullivan said:

I should state that I'm not anti BBC, I, like the majority listen to BBC
radio, not exclusively but a large amount of my listening. I just think
that the only reason everyone listens to the BBC is because they have
not got a great choice of radio

Hi Stephen
You raise a lot of interesting points. I think that the problem with the commercial/ private sector taking on a lot of what the BBC currently does is that it would cherry pick all the cheap to produce, profitable bits and dump the rest. That's pure economics. Would a commercial operator fund radio programmes like say, Crossing Continents or From Our Own Correspondent ? I doubt it. It would probably be wall to wall bloody phone-ins cos that's the cheapest form of 'broadcasting' available.

One parallel could be this- here where I live, when they privatised the bus services years back, we didn't end up with the promised 'choice' of services. Nope, we ended up with about 23 operators competing in the most confusing way to us punters, for the one or two profitable routes say, into town- and just dropped the less used rural services leaving those of us there up the creek. It's settled down a bit now but we still have fewer services.

We need a strong publically funded broadcaster like the Beeb (which is far from perfect but surely better than what's on offer in many countries) to provide us with what the commercial sector simply wouldn't (or couldn't afford) to do.

I agree that the BBC use a hell of a lot of frequencies- (I think Radio Suffolk have about 10 on FM, and remember BBC Hereford and Worcester chose to pop up on 819Khz one day just to jam Caroline). These things need sorting out but maybe Ofcom should get their act together on that.

Regards,
Giles

Christopher England <...> said:
Not that anybody visits here in order to vote, but just checking the
voting malarkey works

Cant find the abstain option!!

Christopher England wrote:

www.anoraknation.com and it usually appears on the front page.<

Ok Chris, found the little old thingy top right of the Home page. Now what?

Oh BTW, I'm trying to log into AN its telling me theres a system error and to try later, has it broke again?

Andy

Quoting a previous Andy contribution:-

Ok Chris, found the little old thingy top right of the Home page. Now
what?

Well, theory has it that you log-in and then you vote. I don't think you can vote without logging-in.

Oh BTW, I'm trying to log into AN its telling me theres a system error
and to try later, has it broke again?

Sigh. Probably. Lucky there's not millions of folk trying to talk on it, innit.
--
* Christopher England just said that *

Quoting a previous Richard Sharpe contribution:-

Cant find the abstain option!!

Heh heh!
—
* Christopher England just said that *

The Anorak Nation poll "The poll thingamie" has been closed. The results are:

 Yes it works: 4 votes
 Oh no it doesn't: 1 votes

The total number of votes cast was 5.

Want to set a poll? Simple. From the Anorak Nation website, start a new discussion message and attach a poll. The message with your poll will be queued for activation on Sunday evening at 11pm.

Christopher England <...> said:
But imagine how much worse it would get were we to force the BBC to shut
down its radio services.

I'm not suggesting the BBC is forced to closedown it's radio services, I'm suggesting they are only allowed two national stations one on FM and the other on MW/LW. I do not understand how a country like the UK allows the dominate national broadcaster to supply 80% of the available national FM networks with programming.
 

GCap of course having now been assimilated by Global, making Global the
major owner of nearly everything. Even GMG's Real, Century and Smooth
brands are 'sold' advertising wise through Global/GCap. I assume the
Heart brands and absolutely everything else, etc., will follow suit.

This just demonstrates that the current set up is woefully inadequate. Selling advertising for all networks needs to be looked at by the monopolies commission

I don't see how a small indie station can seriously compete with that
kind of power to attract national campaigns as revenue. Indeed, any new
entrant would have to go cap in hand to Global/GCap to ask to be sold by
them.

Which is why we will need to make sure that the two winners of my lottery suggestion in an early post has a helping hand at the start of their licence, this could possibly be with the help of public money from the TV licence fee, after all a smaller BBC will not need all the money. This would only be available for the first year if they cannot stand on their own two feet after that they will be forced to hand back the licence again.

So, I'm not sure how reducing the BBC's involvement in radio does
anything but leave us with one big Borg. That's one big Borg and not
even the BBC to bring us diversity. Well, that's worse than 1964!

As I say we will have to have safe guards to get us out of the mess created over the last 40 years of reactive broadcasting legislation, instead of pro active broadcasting legislation.

We need the BBC to help protect radio's future, not just leave radio to
the Borg, surely. The BBC demonstrates their commitment to specialist
interest non-commercial radio, whilst the Borg demonstrates it has no
commitment beyond doing things as cheaply as possible for maximum
profit.

 
The years of Government broadcasting mismanagement has led us to this and you want it to continue because the BBC makes a few good programmes, they could still do this, just with a smaller network.

But the One Network is already effectively a single FM licence across
most of England. There are similar networks across other parts of the
UK. As everything gets assimilated into the giant Global Borg the
network will become bigger.

It's still not broadcasting under one name on an equal footing, the only fair comparison of like for like is BBC Radio Three and Classic FM. These two stations broadly broadcast a similar format. Out of the two, the commercial offering is more popular with the public, plus they pay taxes towards the economy of the country, not spend them

Are you saying that the only format worth chasing requires national
coverage?

Yes
I don't see the point in having a format that broadcasts to a small area unless you are a local station that wants to serve the community, In which case why would you want a Jazz/Country/Rock/News/Plays/Comedy station broadcasting to a local area. ILR never really served the community with there pop stations

Steve

Your chance to vote!

gloworm558 . <...> said:
Hi Stephen
You raise a lot of interesting points. I think that the problem with the
commercial/ private sector taking on a lot of what the BBC currently
does is that it would cherry pick all the cheap to produce, profitable
bits and dump the rest. That's pure economics. Would a commercial
operator fund radio programmes like say, Crossing Continents or From Our
Own Correspondent ? I doubt it. It would probably be wall to wall bloody
phone-ins cos that's the cheapest form of 'broadcasting' available.

I'm sure that would probably be the case, but that is why I'm not proposing to close the BBC just reduce it.

One parallel could be this- here where I live, when they privatised the
bus services years back, we didn't end up with the promised 'choice' of
services. Nope, we ended up with about 23 operators competing in the
most confusing way to us punters, for the one or two profitable routes
say, into town- and just dropped the less used rural services leaving
those of us there up the creek. It's settled down a bit now but we still
have fewer services.

The Bus services in most towns have improved, but the rural areas have problems, but with radio you would be bringing commercial radio to all of the UK not just the big conurbations
 

We need a strong publically funded broadcaster like the Beeb (which is
far from perfect but surely better than what's on offer in many
countries) to provide us with what the commercial sector simply wouldn't
(or couldn't afford) to do.

I agree, but what we do not need is a BBC that runs 80% of the national FM networks

I agree that the BBC use a hell of a lot of frequencies- (I think Radio
Suffolk have about 10 on FM, and remember BBC Hereford and Worcester
chose to pop up on 819Khz one day just to jam Caroline). These things
need sorting out but maybe Ofcom should get their act together on that.

Here Here

Steve

Quoting a previous Stephen Sullivan contribution:-

I'm not suggesting the BBC is forced to closedown it's radio services,
I'm suggesting they are only allowed two national stations one on FM and
the other on MW/LW.

This would be fine if we were suddenly inventing the UK from scratch and broadcasting was something just developing, but the problem is we're not. To suddenly restrict the BBC's current output to two national analogue stations means that you are effectively closing down three of the existing ones, plus, I assume, completely revamping the remaining two national networks you've allowed, in order to accommodate partial programming from the three analogue networks you've just gotten rid of. The net effect of the latter option is the near complete destruction of BBC radio as known and loved by over 50% of the population. You aren't going to win hearts and minds with that one.

I do not understand how a country like the UK allows
the dominate national broadcaster to supply 80% of the available
national FM networks with programming.

Surely, the proper way to redress the balance would be to find a way to increase the amount of stations that can simultaneously be delivered to the listener rather than slash and burn those that currently are. The thought was that the way forward was via DAB. It still may be. Obviously something is needed to deal with the analogue shortfall, even if it's just a re-examination of analogue band plans. I mean, there's got to be something technical to be learned from the current co-existence of over 60 pirate radio stations interwoven with the licensed stations in London. However, to my mind wholesale destruction of BBC radio is not the answer.

after all a smaller BBC will not need all the money.

Well, if you are opting for a smaller BBC, as in a BBC not producing or offsetting the licence fee's true cost by being able to sell-on programming and so on ('cos it's now too small to have much to sell), then you are actually going to be in a unique and strange position where the licence fee will have to increase to fund a stripped down BBC.

As I say we will have to have safe guards to get us out of the mess
created over the last 40 years of reactive broadcasting legislation,
instead of pro active broadcasting legislation.

Ah. So more rules and regulations, and formats and intrusion like back in the days of the IBA and commercial radio's infancy?

The years of Government broadcasting mismanagement has led us to this
and you want it to continue because the BBC makes a few good programmes,
they could still do this, just with a smaller network.

The BBC doesn't just make a few good programmes when it comes to radio. It makes a few damn good networks full of good programmes. Networks that are not provided by the commercial sector. Indeed, the commercial sector don't even provide single versions of the programmes within the BBC's radio networks.

But the One Network is already effectively a single FM licence across
most of England. There are similar networks across other parts of the
UK. As everything gets assimilated into the giant Global Borg the
network will become bigger.

It's still not broadcasting under one name on an equal footing,

Yet. You saw how 'Gold' became one single network across the most of the UK, you watch how the latest stripping of 'localness' on the One Network stations will lead to them adopting a common name.

the only
fair comparison of like for like is BBC Radio Three and Classic FM.

Well, not really, if you analyse them they are completely different to each other, and the demographics of their listeners are different, but I take your point.

—
* Christopher England just said that *

From: "Christopher England" <...>

Your chance to vote!

Great stuff!

At last the return of the polls on a Sunday evening!

Superb!