And to add to the “governmental” / “non-governmental” thing - don’t forget that Channel 4 is owned by the government (though run independently of course) but supported by advertising.
But you do get a free TV licence if you are over 75.
No, Channel 4 is a corporation, just like the BBC, although it was created by an act of Parliament rather than by royal charter.
What if you’re blind AND over 75? Do you get money paid to you?
Our (American) use of the word “season” in reference to television shows is a bit confusing and odd. Basically, a “season” is an entire year’s worth of episodes. Traditionally, a season ran approximately from September to May and it was during this time that new episodes of current shows (usually one-hour dramas and half-hour comedies) were shown during prime time (7 - 11 p.m.). During the summer, there rarely were any new episodes of prime-time dramas and comedies shown. (Daytime, i.e., soap operas, game shows, and talk shows, was different.)
In the U.S., the word “series” refers to the program as a whole – “Seinfeld” is a series (or show or program) that lasted nine seasons (years). (A “serial” is a drama with one continuous storyline, rare in the U.S. outside daytime soaps.)
Since the late 1980s or so, this system has started to break down, primarily because of H.B.O.'s success in presenting short-seasoned premium cable original programming that could start at any time of the year.
Originally, to be a reputable prime-time program, you had to produce enough weekly episodes to fill out a whole season, with only a few gaps for specials and sports events. With networks and producers becoming more cost-conscious (i.e., give 'em less for more) over the years, the number of episodes in a season has shrunk, some to only 25 or so.
Even now, though, networks have a strong dislike for shows that don’t like they can be stretched over a whole season. For example, over the last few years there have been several critically acclaimed new shows debuted on various networks (e.g., “Freaks and Geeks,” “Grosse Pointe,” “Undeclared,” “The Tick”) that didn’t find an audience right off the bat. Whereas once the networks would give such shows an opportunity to develop a following, today the networks prefer to axe them out of the lineup as soon as possible, tossing out any unaired episodes.
Unfortunately most cable channels (which are more geared towards narrower audiences than the networks) still don’t have the budget to pick up a show that might be very popular among a smaller audience, so usually shows like these die an early death, leaving only a small number of well done episodes and the ache of unfulfilled promise.
Our (American) use of the word “season” in reference to television shows is a bit confusing and odd. Basically, a “season” is an entire year’s worth of episodes. Traditionally, a season ran approximately from September to May and it was during this time that new episodes of current shows (usually one-hour dramas and half-hour comedies) were shown during prime time (7 - 11 p.m.). During the summer, there rarely were any new episodes of prime-time dramas and comedies shown. (Daytime, i.e., soap operas, game shows, and talk shows, was different.)
In the U.S., the word “series” refers to the program as a whole – “Seinfeld” is a series (or show or program) that lasted nine seasons (years). (A “serial” is a drama with one continuous storyline, rare in the U.S. outside daytime soaps.)
Since the late 1980s or so, this system has started to break down, primarily because of H.B.O.'s success in presenting short-seasoned premium cable original programming that could start at any time of the year.
Originally, to be a reputable prime-time program, you had to produce enough weekly episodes to fill out a whole season, with only a few gaps for specials and sports events. With networks and producers becoming more cost-conscious (i.e., give 'em less for more) over the years, the number of episodes in a season has shrunk, some to only 25 or so.
Even now, though, networks have a strong dislike for shows that don’t like they can be stretched over a whole season. For example, over the last few years there have been several critically acclaimed new shows debuted on various networks (e.g., “Freaks and Geeks,” “Grosse Pointe,” “Undeclared,” “The Tick”) that didn’t find an audience right off the bat. Whereas once the networks would give such shows an opportunity to develop a following, today the networks prefer to axe them out of the lineup as soon as possible, tossing out any unaired episodes.
Unfortunately most cable channels (which are more geared towards narrower audiences than the networks) still don’t have the budget to pick up a show that might be very popular among a smaller audience, so usually shows like these die an early death, leaving only a small number of well done episodes and the ache of unfulfilled promise.
It is indeed a corporation - and a publicly owned one at that. That is to say, it is owned by the government.
Privatisation was proposed a while back, but the new controller Mark Thompson is apposed to the process.
The situation is similar in Ireland. We pay for a television licence, which helps to fund a state broadcasting company with several TV and radio channels. However, they sell advertising too, to complete their funding. We also have totally independent TV and radio broadcasters, with no state funding.
In Canada, there is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is government-funded, but run independently. It operates audio and video services in both English and French: AM and FM radio, television, shortwave radio, plus (on satellite and cable) news channels and commercial-free audio channels.
We don’t pay an explicit tax for it; the funding comes out of general revenue. The CBC also sells advertising. Some provinces have equivalents (TVOntario, for instance).
The nearest US equivalent I can think of is National Public Radio and PBS.
British TV has changed out of all recognition over the last 15 years or so. Major stations play 24 hours per day and I cannot remember when I last saw a test card or a clock nor when I last heard the national anthem as a station shut down.
A lot of us do have non-terrestrial TV. I think the most popular is BSkyB satelite, I have NTL cable. The NTL service I pay for gives me 90 channels although I don’t subscribe to any of the major film channels of which there must be 20 or so.
Of course, all those channels are filled up with repeats and imports, but not all these are unwelcome. I am sure that it would be quite possible to sit in a UK hotel room watching satelite/cable and forget that you had ever left home.
The UK does still procduce some excellent telly. The best is distictively British and may be difficult for a non-Brit to fully appreciate. I am sure that nationals of most countries could say the same.
Although the BBC gets a lot of its funding from the TV licence fee that is not its sole source of revenue. It also has a commercial arm which is responsible for selling its products both at home and overseas. This takes the form of video and audio tapes of BBC programmes and “spin off” books and magazines. Another major source of revenue is the sale to other broadcasting companies around the world of either original programmes ( Teletubbies etc.) or programme ideas such as " The Weakest Link". This latter format has now been sold to nearly a hundred countries and brings in millions to the BBC.
I have never understood two things about our (British) TV:
1, Why is the BBC allowed to charge? (and why dont any other stations do it?)
2, Why were there only 4 terrestrial channels? (up until recently)
Thanks.
2: how many channels can an individual watch at any one time?; why would we need more than 4 channels?
Be thankful you don’t live in Sweden, where there are only three (+ a channel in Finnish).
The BBC goes back a long way. (They used to wear dinner jackets to read the news. 
)
It’s possible the Government of the day thought it would be best to keep a close eye on this new technology.
Anyway the main answer to 1. is that there are no adverts (especially in the middle of films!). So the license fee is the source of the BBC’s income.
As for 2. some of us remember when there were just two channels (and in black and white too…)
AFAIK they even used to wear dinner jackets to read the news pre TV on the radio broadcasts (but someone might pop in and see us in the tweed jackets otherwise, which of course would be totally inappropriate). It’s definately an odd thing being British sometimes.
Merrin
I think the justification for the BBC’s license fee goes along the lines of it allows the BBC to make “quality” programmes or shows for minority interests, since they don’t have to rely on ratings for advertising revenue. To be fair, though, Channel 4 seem to fulfil this remit fairly well, admittedly with a hell of a lot of rubbish thrown in for good measure.
I guess the guaranteed income also means that, for instance, things like the Jubilee Concert could be broadcast without advert breaks and - more importantly - the BBC could afford to put up the giant screens in the parks, along the Mall, and outside the palace, so that everyone could see. I think that the BBC seems to excel at times like this - but then, I’ve not seen the other side of the coin. Is there anything similar and to the same scale that has been done by commercial broadcasters (for ref, the cost to the BBC came to around 4 million pounds, IIRC).
Come to think of it, the question ought not to be “Why can the BBC charge a license fee”, but “Why can cable and satellite broadcasters charge a fee AND advertise?”
Different funding philosophy. For example, one commercial channel in the UK earns 50% more in advertising revenue than the BBC generates through it’s licence fee. And for an approximately equal level of programming (in terms of popularity). That’s seems to not be terribly efficient.
If you think that advertising revenue comes out of shareholder/stockholder profits of the companies advertising, I think you’re in for a surprise. You pay for that less than efficient means of providing teevee programming every time you visit the supermarket. And you pay a lot.
Mantra: Ain’t nothing free in relation to teevee.
The reason there are only 4 or 5 terrestrial channels is because this was the maximum number channels that could be squeezed in on the available frequency spectrum allocated to TV broadcasts. When Channel 5 was added there were great problems caused by co-channel interferance both in the UK and from Europe. With the advent of digital TV the number of terrestrial channels can now be increased up to between 30 and forty , depending on how tight the signal is compressed.
Because they got there first and it became established in law. Other channels get their revenue by advertising.
Some question whether this is fair and point out that other channels can provide just as good TV without licence revenue. The way I see it is that even if you don’t watch any BBC at all, by their very presence they are raising the standard of TV in the UK. If they weren’t there providing advertless broadcasting there would be little to stop all the other channels, who are driven by commercial interests, being taken over by dross with the soul aim of selling stuff. As it is, if they followed this course everyone would just switch over to the BBC.
There are technical reasons, but the chief reason is that the legal regulations for minimum standards of broadcasting raised the costs. The UK Government weren’t interested in opening up the air to a virtual free-for-all and the standards a broadcaster had to match were quite high before a licence would be issued. There were also very strict regulations on what advertisers were allowed to do. For instance, sponsorship that is commonplace in the US was not permitted and you could get fined for appearing to make any kind of product endorsements outside of clearly marked advert breaks.
For most, advertising revenues simply couldn’t meet these standards, as ITV had pretty much cornered the market. Channel 4 had a terrible time filling its advertising space when it first started. You could get entire advert breaks that were just a ‘back soon’ message. However, developments in technology has made it cheaper to create and air adverts, opening up the market. It’s also possible to run a TV station on lower costs, thereby making more channels viable. The regulations on advertising and sponsorship have also been relaxed, though still nothing like as permissive as US regulations.