The Best Way for the BBC to Save Money?

So it turns out that due to an early government decision to "help satellite broadcasters justify the investment they needed to build their platform" the BBC pays Sky £10 million a year in "retransmission fees". I can understand the initial reasoning, using taxpayers' money to help create competition can be useful in industries where start-up costs are high and thus off-putting to private investors. But at this point it should be the other way around, you don't see HBO paying Sky to carry Mad Men, and you certainly don't see the FA paying Sky to broadcast live football. 

As BBC Director General Mark Thompson pointed out in 2010 Rupert Murdoch is even in favour of this change

The point is a simple one [in the US] it's the free-to-air networks who invest the most in broadcast content, they're also the most popular networks in the US cable and satellite environments, so isn't it reasonable that the distributors should pay the networks a charge in return for the right to carry them? The man who made that case is Rupert Murdoch and in America he's winning the argument – Fox is now receiving distribution fees from the cable companies. So why not introduce retransmission fees in the UK as well?

As it happens the BBC is not asking to be paid, but simply no longer to pay out themselves. Seems fair to me.

The Best Way for the BBC to Save Money?

So it turns out that due to an early government decision to "help satellite broadcasters justify the investment they needed to build their platform" the BBC pays Sky £10 million a year in "retransmission fees". I can understand the initial reasoning, using taxpayers' money to help create competition can be useful in industries where start-up costs are high and thus off-putting to private investors. But at this point it should be the other way around, you don't see HBO paying Sky to carry Mad Men, and you certainly don't see the FA paying Sky to broadcast live football. 

As BBC Director General Mark Thompson pointed out in 2010 Rupert Murdoch is even in favour of this change

The point is a simple one [in the US] it's the free-to-air networks who invest the most in broadcast content, they're also the most popular networks in the US cable and satellite environments, so isn't it reasonable that the distributors should pay the networks a charge in return for the right to carry them? The man who made that case is Rupert Murdoch and in America he's winning the argument – Fox is now receiving distribution fees from the cable companies. So why not introduce retransmission fees in the UK as well?

As it happens the BBC is not asking to be paid, but simply no longer to pay out themselves. Seems fair to me.

I Could Not Be More Excited

Metronomy – The Bay

Eat Food.

Mostly Plants.

Not too much.

Thank You for Making Things Better XKCD

Sorry there have been no posts recently, I have exams coming up. Hopefully normal service will resume shortly.

In the mean time:

via XKCD

Political Polls Too

Thanks XKCD

Is it Time to Give Nick Clegg a Break Yet? Parliamentary Reform Edition.

image from the UK Parliament Flickr page

According to the BBC:

A future government draft bill would contain plans for an 80:20 split but there would be a provision for a fully elected chamber if that is "what people want", he told MPs, appealing for a cross-party consensus on the issue

Typically there are complaints from both Labour and the Tories:

Labour attacked the plan, contained in a draft bill, and argued the Liberal Democrat leader should have stuck to his party's commitment to a wholly-elected upper House of Parliament

This is apparently the same Labour whose electoral reforms consisted of appointing Lords and the Cash for Honours scandal, though according to the BBC they now (that they're not in power) support a 100% elected Upper Chamber. Besides, as Clegg said:

"Personally I have always supported 100% elected, but the key thing is not to make the best the enemy of the good.

I would love to see a 100% elected Lords, without any bishops, but these things take time and 80% is a hell of a lot better than 0%. 

Meanwhile from the Tory backbenches:

"Is this yet another tatty roadshow brought to us by the same people who thought the British people wanted the alternative vote?" Tory MP Bernard Jenkin said. "If he really believes that the British people want this reform, why does he not submit these proposals to a referendum and let the British people decide."

Should we start holding referendums for every decision parliament makes?

Under the proposed changes there would be 300 members who would serve 15 year terms, would be elected by the Single Transferable Voting system (based on proportional representation), and a third of members would be up for election at any one time. Also the number of bishops would be cut from 26 to 12. 

There has been criticism that 15 year terms are too long for serious democratic accountability. This is a valid concern, I agree it is not ideal, though I would guess that this is in an attempt to keep the Lords a conservative chamber which can put the brakes on any party attempting too much legislation too fast (though the current House of Lords seems to be doing a poor job of that at the moment). This is also something that can hopefully be re-examined. 

The staging of elections makes sense if you want to keep the two houses from becoming too similar, though this could also be achieved with fixed terms in both houses and shorter terms (in the Lords). 

So after an upsetting defeat over AV things are looking positive again in the world of electoral reform. The proposals may not be perfect, they may be a long way from that, but they promise a future a little bit better than the present. Surely we can give Clegg a little break for that?

Dispatches from the Robot Apocalypse – Part XII

According to Wired the "robot war over Libya has already begun"

Just to show how useless we watery meat-bags are:

The Predators fly lower than gunships like the AC-130 or attack planes like the A-10. Their sensor and camera suites give them better visibility than human pilots have, reducing the risk of collateral damage. And they can fly for 24 hours at a time, providing “extended persistence.”

Further:

But chalk up another milestone for drone warfare. First they hunted terrorists and insurgents. Now they’re going to shoot missiles at dug-in armor and mobile infantry forces, all so the United States can pretend it’s not expanding its involvement in a war conceived on the fly. What can’t robots do?

Quite.

Vote Yes to AV

As most of you are well aware by now there is a referendum being held tomorrow. As most of you are also well aware I have been arguing for a yes vote to change our method of electing MPs from First Past the Post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV). I won't go into the details of AV here, though if anyone has any questions you are welcome to ask me. I will, instead, present a video which points out some of the problems with FPTP (fair warning, it's a bit cute). 

Now AV will only help with the "spoiler effect". To counter the other problems further reform is needed to our electoral system. However, some improvement is better than no improvement, and by removing the spoiler effect the path to further reform would be more open (again, ask if you'd like any further explanation). 

So I implore you, prove the polls wrong and help to improve the political landscape of this country. Vote Yes tomorrow.