BROADCASTING FREEDOM

Repeal the 1967 Marine etc broadcasting act,  Radio in the UK is failing it is only concerned with profit not listeners. If they catered for listers the profits would follow.

 By allowing offshore broadcasting (using DRM?) the radio industry would be revived creating a real listener choice . using largly unwanted bandwith on the am band with DRM quality

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the 1967 Marine etc broadcasting act,  Radio in the UK is failing it is only concerned with profit not listeners. If they catered for listers the profits would follow.

 By allowing offshore broadcasting (using DRM?) the radio industry would be revived creating a real listener choice . using largly unwanted bandwith on the am band with DRM quality

Digital radio

I have spent thousands of pounds on FM radio equipment which will be made useless by the Bill sneaked in at the end of the last Parliament.

Repeal the legislation at the first opportunity.

Why is this idea important?

I have spent thousands of pounds on FM radio equipment which will be made useless by the Bill sneaked in at the end of the last Parliament.

Repeal the legislation at the first opportunity.

repeal digital radio switchover requirement

This doesn't quite fit any of your categories, so I'll put it here for somewhere to put it.

The switchover to digital radio is a waste of time, money, effort and carbon emissions.

Digital radio uses significantly more electricity than FM, so the switchover will increase carbon emissions permanently just when we're trying to reduce them.

The quality of broadcast is inferior, particularly affecting all music stations.

Most households have multiple radios (I have 8, excluding the car) and the cost of replacing them all will be prohibitive. Additionally, the manufacture and purchase of all these extra radios will waste resources and increase one-off carbon emissions.

Old radios, we are told, will receive the new stations and so not be 'redundant' – but I want to listen to the stations I choose, not some mythical new ones. I want BBC Radios 3 and 4 to continue on FM!

Changing radios in cars will be difficult and very expensive.

Does anyone really want all the extra radio stations we're supposed to get?

Who is supposed to benefit from this switchover?

This is a wasteful, unnecessary, expensive nonsense – please drop it forthwith.

Why is this idea important?

This doesn't quite fit any of your categories, so I'll put it here for somewhere to put it.

The switchover to digital radio is a waste of time, money, effort and carbon emissions.

Digital radio uses significantly more electricity than FM, so the switchover will increase carbon emissions permanently just when we're trying to reduce them.

The quality of broadcast is inferior, particularly affecting all music stations.

Most households have multiple radios (I have 8, excluding the car) and the cost of replacing them all will be prohibitive. Additionally, the manufacture and purchase of all these extra radios will waste resources and increase one-off carbon emissions.

Old radios, we are told, will receive the new stations and so not be 'redundant' – but I want to listen to the stations I choose, not some mythical new ones. I want BBC Radios 3 and 4 to continue on FM!

Changing radios in cars will be difficult and very expensive.

Does anyone really want all the extra radio stations we're supposed to get?

Who is supposed to benefit from this switchover?

This is a wasteful, unnecessary, expensive nonsense – please drop it forthwith.

Pollution of the airwaves

Review the use of power line devices that use mains wiring to broadcast around the home. This causes serious pollution of the radio spectrum and also has major health implications. Do people realise that they are being bathed in high frequency radiation?

Why is this idea important?

Review the use of power line devices that use mains wiring to broadcast around the home. This causes serious pollution of the radio spectrum and also has major health implications. Do people realise that they are being bathed in high frequency radiation?

The Marine, Etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 c.41

Sirs,

How about scrapping the The Marine, Etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 c.41 and any associated parts of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006?

If this idea is to give the people their freedom back then how about freedom to listen to radio stations with names other than 'Heart' or 'Gold'.

With many countries starting to silence their am transmitters lets give people the option to stick a boat in the North Sea ( of course there'll have to be a clause that would allow an anchorage between the 3 and 12 mile limits) and produce proper radio how it use to be.

DAB is obviously not taking of as hoped so lets have some open the avenues to get 'Fun' radio back.

Thanks.

Why is this idea important?

Sirs,

How about scrapping the The Marine, Etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 c.41 and any associated parts of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006?

If this idea is to give the people their freedom back then how about freedom to listen to radio stations with names other than 'Heart' or 'Gold'.

With many countries starting to silence their am transmitters lets give people the option to stick a boat in the North Sea ( of course there'll have to be a clause that would allow an anchorage between the 3 and 12 mile limits) and produce proper radio how it use to be.

DAB is obviously not taking of as hoped so lets have some open the avenues to get 'Fun' radio back.

Thanks.

Rescind the discontinuance of FM/AM radio

By discontinuing AM and FM radio transmission, the Government is committing the UK to several billion in unnecessary expenditure. 

My four radios will cost over £500 to replace with digital radios and equivalent facilities.  If that is repeated across 15 million households the cost to the country would be at least £7 billion.  A digital car radio will cost at least £300.  There are 20 million vehicles in the UK so the cost to replace all those radios could be in excess of £6 billion.

The total cost to the economy will be at least £10 billion and probably nearer £15 billion.  And the reason cited is that it will free up more channels.  If this is likely and is needed by the emergency services, then it makes more sense to
  a] reduce the number of broadcasters,
  b] rationalise the frequencies and
  c] dedicate more sections of the bandwidth to emergency services
rather than committing the UK to wasting billions on not-very-good "new" facilities.

There is no need for several hundred [or thousand?] broadcasters of pop music.  This is just an ego-trip for most DJs and wastefully crowds the airwaves with the same or very similar material.

Furthermore, most digital users seem to think their new radios give no better service than FM and the coverage in remote areas of the country is reputedly rubbish!  Just because digital is the in-thing and is new doesn't make it a priori better.

Please reverse the decision.

Ray7033

Why is this idea important?

By discontinuing AM and FM radio transmission, the Government is committing the UK to several billion in unnecessary expenditure. 

My four radios will cost over £500 to replace with digital radios and equivalent facilities.  If that is repeated across 15 million households the cost to the country would be at least £7 billion.  A digital car radio will cost at least £300.  There are 20 million vehicles in the UK so the cost to replace all those radios could be in excess of £6 billion.

The total cost to the economy will be at least £10 billion and probably nearer £15 billion.  And the reason cited is that it will free up more channels.  If this is likely and is needed by the emergency services, then it makes more sense to
  a] reduce the number of broadcasters,
  b] rationalise the frequencies and
  c] dedicate more sections of the bandwidth to emergency services
rather than committing the UK to wasting billions on not-very-good "new" facilities.

There is no need for several hundred [or thousand?] broadcasters of pop music.  This is just an ego-trip for most DJs and wastefully crowds the airwaves with the same or very similar material.

Furthermore, most digital users seem to think their new radios give no better service than FM and the coverage in remote areas of the country is reputedly rubbish!  Just because digital is the in-thing and is new doesn't make it a priori better.

Please reverse the decision.

Ray7033

Air traffic radio listening & rebroadcast

Under the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act it is illegal to listen to air traffic radio communication in the UK on a scanning receiver which can be bought in any High Street. It is not illegal to OWN an airband radio, you just can't use it ! The law permits the listening to broadcasts that are intended for "general reception" only, including amateur, CB and public broadcast radio. The listening to air traffic communication is not, and never has been, a security issue to the UK and we are the only country that does not allow the rebroadcast or even discussion of such transmissions. In today's multimedia world, this is something that needs to change.

Why is this idea important?

Under the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act it is illegal to listen to air traffic radio communication in the UK on a scanning receiver which can be bought in any High Street. It is not illegal to OWN an airband radio, you just can't use it ! The law permits the listening to broadcasts that are intended for "general reception" only, including amateur, CB and public broadcast radio. The listening to air traffic communication is not, and never has been, a security issue to the UK and we are the only country that does not allow the rebroadcast or even discussion of such transmissions. In today's multimedia world, this is something that needs to change.

The TV License re-evaluated

Understandably, there is a growing amount of hostility towards the TV license. Many see the License fee as just another tax and, perhaps, do not recognise the important part it plays in maintaining high quality and cheap broadcasting in Britain.

Britain has the best television and radio in the world and one of the most economical. The unique way broadcasting is funded through the TV license is a fundamental reason for this. Although the public may feel like they are paying twice to watch television and have no choice in the matter, in fact the license fee actually sets the price point for TV in Britain. Just look across the ocean to our neighbours in North America who have fully commercial television. A typical cable bill is $100 per month and the service is riddled with advertising every eight minutes.

The TV license is not a “BBC-TV tax”, yes it funds BBC television but also national and local radio services. The so-called “freeview” channels also benefit from it.

However, the BBC has changed over the last decade and become too commercial. Celebrities are paid far too handsome salaries and private production companies profit from BBC programming. It seems a shake up at the Beeb and a re-evaluation of the license fee would be in the publics’ interested. The uniqueness of the license fee should be protected but its revenue used in a new way.

My proposal is that the TV license is replaced with a “Broadcasting License” to reflect that the financial contributions from the license fee not only support BBC television production but local and national radio services and other independent TV broadcasters. We also need to recognise the changing way the public access broadcasting. The Broadcasting License should also support the internet/network infrastructure across the UK. The new license, as well as supporting the BBC, should also contribute to the development of a national fibre optic network and supply every UK license fee payer with free high-speed broadband internet access. Profits from the commercial arm of the BBC should also be used to support the national broadcasting and network infrastructure.

The BBC also needs to get back to its roots. It should become a television producer again rather than a publisher. It should reinvest in its production and post-production facilities so that it can make its own programming once more. The BBC should be making a wide spectrum of programming not just cheap commercial reality-type shows. It should be the world leader in training broadcasting professionals and in research and development of broadcasting technology. Its back catalogue of vintage programming and radio productions should be made available online for the public to access freely. No more ridiculous salaries for celebrities. The BBC does not need to pay these high wages, there are plenty more upcoming actors and presenters ready waiting to take they place without requiring Hollywood contracts.

In summary my proposals are:

  1. Ditch the current TV license for a new “Broadcasting License”.
  2. The License to also fund a national high-speed fibre optic network.
  3. Free high-speed broadband internet access for all license fee payers.
  4. The BBC to make its own television programmers in house.
  5. The BBC should be a world leader in broadcasting staff training and R&D.
  6. No more celebrities on Hollywood salaries.
  7. The BBC should be making TV programmes for all from costume dramas, to documentaries, educational, special interest, comedies, etc. Cut the cheap commercial reality and quiz shows.
  8. BBC worldwide profits re-invested in the broadcasting/network infrastructure.

The downside – there has to be one right?
The new Broadcasting License would be payable by any residence owning a TV, radio, or with any other means of accessing “Freeview” channels either through terrestrial, satellite, cable or via the internet.

Why is this idea important?

Understandably, there is a growing amount of hostility towards the TV license. Many see the License fee as just another tax and, perhaps, do not recognise the important part it plays in maintaining high quality and cheap broadcasting in Britain.

Britain has the best television and radio in the world and one of the most economical. The unique way broadcasting is funded through the TV license is a fundamental reason for this. Although the public may feel like they are paying twice to watch television and have no choice in the matter, in fact the license fee actually sets the price point for TV in Britain. Just look across the ocean to our neighbours in North America who have fully commercial television. A typical cable bill is $100 per month and the service is riddled with advertising every eight minutes.

The TV license is not a “BBC-TV tax”, yes it funds BBC television but also national and local radio services. The so-called “freeview” channels also benefit from it.

However, the BBC has changed over the last decade and become too commercial. Celebrities are paid far too handsome salaries and private production companies profit from BBC programming. It seems a shake up at the Beeb and a re-evaluation of the license fee would be in the publics’ interested. The uniqueness of the license fee should be protected but its revenue used in a new way.

My proposal is that the TV license is replaced with a “Broadcasting License” to reflect that the financial contributions from the license fee not only support BBC television production but local and national radio services and other independent TV broadcasters. We also need to recognise the changing way the public access broadcasting. The Broadcasting License should also support the internet/network infrastructure across the UK. The new license, as well as supporting the BBC, should also contribute to the development of a national fibre optic network and supply every UK license fee payer with free high-speed broadband internet access. Profits from the commercial arm of the BBC should also be used to support the national broadcasting and network infrastructure.

The BBC also needs to get back to its roots. It should become a television producer again rather than a publisher. It should reinvest in its production and post-production facilities so that it can make its own programming once more. The BBC should be making a wide spectrum of programming not just cheap commercial reality-type shows. It should be the world leader in training broadcasting professionals and in research and development of broadcasting technology. Its back catalogue of vintage programming and radio productions should be made available online for the public to access freely. No more ridiculous salaries for celebrities. The BBC does not need to pay these high wages, there are plenty more upcoming actors and presenters ready waiting to take they place without requiring Hollywood contracts.

In summary my proposals are:

  1. Ditch the current TV license for a new “Broadcasting License”.
  2. The License to also fund a national high-speed fibre optic network.
  3. Free high-speed broadband internet access for all license fee payers.
  4. The BBC to make its own television programmers in house.
  5. The BBC should be a world leader in broadcasting staff training and R&D.
  6. No more celebrities on Hollywood salaries.
  7. The BBC should be making TV programmes for all from costume dramas, to documentaries, educational, special interest, comedies, etc. Cut the cheap commercial reality and quiz shows.
  8. BBC worldwide profits re-invested in the broadcasting/network infrastructure.

The downside – there has to be one right?
The new Broadcasting License would be payable by any residence owning a TV, radio, or with any other means of accessing “Freeview” channels either through terrestrial, satellite, cable or via the internet.