Cribbed from the Azaaz.org site I registered a petition from;

The BBC is being forced to hand over tens of millions of pounds every year to line Murdoch’s pockets. Murdoch’s cronies in government are determined to save this scheme — but together we can stop this outrage.

These unbelievable regulations cost our public broadcasters up to £100 million a year. Rather than being paid for their great programmes, they actually have to pay BSkyB to show their programmes.

In coming days, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt will decide whether to renew this dreadful deal and Murdoch’s scandals have put him on the back foot. Our pressure can stop this BBC robbery. Click here to send your message to Hunt now:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_murdochs_bbc_robbery_2/?tta

These are our millions — handed over in license fees to fund British programmes, not to boost Murdoch’s profits. But an unfair system of “retransmission fees” designed by Murdoch leaves the BBC and other broadcasters with no choice. They are forced to pay BSkyB to show their channels, even though they add huge value to the satellite platform — accounting for 41% of all shows watched on BSkyB and vastly increasing customer retention.

Amazingly, Murdoch has argued the exact opposite in the US — there, he charges cable TV companies over $250 million a year to show his programmes. With the same deal Murdoch gets in the US, our public service broadcasters would have hundreds of millions of pounds extra every year to invest in great programmes. This money would allow the BBC to reverse its cuts to BB4 and local radio overnight.

Murdoch’s cozy relationship with our politicians has won him this outrageous UK scheme — but his power is starting to crumble, and together we can end it. Labour has already come out against this deal, and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is about to make his decision in his communications review — send your message now to make sure he stops this outrage.

SOURCES

Re-transmission fees in the UK: the case for change (independent report):
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/RetransmissionandAccessChargesReview.pdf

How the BBC can stand up to parasitic Sky (The Guardian):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/02/maimed-bbc-parasitic-sky

Broadcasters union backs call for reform (BECTU):
http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1408

To:  Andrew.Dumbreck@ofcom.org.uk

Dear Sir,

As per; http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom_bbc.pdf

I am unclear as to the public benefit, in particular as to why the BBC should be approaching Offcom “to take steps to ensure that reception equipment will implement the specified content management arrangements”.

It would seem to me that;

a) Since the BBC is publicly funded, the direction should come from the licence fee payers and not the third party content owners – if they wish to lobby, surely they should do so directly?

b) There is no benefit for the licence payer, and potentially considerable cost, as if I read the amendment correctly, the scrambling can only be undone by new boxes, rendering the current crop of set top boxes etc, obsolete and non-functional, requiring new boxes to be purchased – already a sore point for those forced to purchase one by the digital switchover.

I would ask you to refuse this ammendment on these grounds.

Thanks,

John, Licence fee payer.