4 ms·

More to the point, as a Brit living in the USA, I'd be more than happy to pay my license fee from here and keep watching. Right now I "steal" it, which makes me

More to the point, as a Brit living in the USA, I'd be more than happy to pay my license fee from here and keep watching. Right now I "steal" it, which makes me feel bad every time I fire up the VPN. BBC: I will pay you. Others will pay you. This will lower the license fee back home.

jonlucc 10y ago
I've never been to any part of the UK, and I'd gladly pay BBC similar to Netflix or Hulu rates for access without a VPN. I just like following British shows, and it's very difficult and expensive to get them through other channels (with long delays, for some reason).
ptaffs 10y ago
In simple terms, also a Brit living abroad, I agree. But I think the problem is Entertainment Industry layers of licensing. I believe the BBC pays actors, images and incidental music by industry association (eg BMI), license which may not be global, but only for UK territories. Geo-blocking is more of a problem of super complex royalties and intellectual property management, not simply they don't want to share. Compare with sports events which are licensed by territory for no practical reason except negotiating rights, the successful bidding media outlet is often required by the producer to geo-block.
soneil 10y ago
> I will pay you. Others will pay you. This will lower the license fee back home. As I understand it, this isn’t necessarily the case. I understand that the BBC actually investigated making iPlayer available in the US previously. The outcome was that cable networks told them they’d drop BBC America if it was to go ahead. For most networks in the US, BBCA sits in the middle tier - not a premium channel (eg HBO), but not in the basic package. It’s used as bait/value-add to provide incentive for customers to upgrade from the basic package. So for the networks, having the same content available online lowers its value. This is the basic crunch when it comes to geo-free online streaming vs traditional cable networks. We (customers) want both models available to us, but the two are in direct opposition. And in this case, it’d appear the traditional model is still winning, since BBC International decided that preserving BBCA’s income was more important. We tend to paint it as rather protectionist, but in most cases, the content-providers do have the option of walking. That they don’t want to, tells us that the existing model is still the more profitable. There’s not much we can do to fight it until this changes.
- xg15 10y ago
  Excuse the stupid question, but why is BBC still dependent on cross-selling to other cable networks and therefore to bow to their strategic interests? Why couldn't BBC market directly to ent-users as an internet streaming service?

jonlucc 10y ago

I've never been to any part of the UK, and I'd gladly pay BBC similar to Netflix or Hulu rates for access without a VPN. I just like following British shows, and it's very difficult and expensive to get them through other channels (with long delays, for some reason).

ptaffs 10y ago

In simple terms, also a Brit living abroad, I agree. But I think the problem is Entertainment Industry layers of licensing. I believe the BBC pays actors, images and incidental music by industry association (eg BMI), license which may not be global, but only for UK territories. Geo-blocking is more of a problem of super complex royalties and intellectual property management, not simply they don't want to share. Compare with sports events which are licensed by territory for no practical reason except negotiating rights, the successful bidding media outlet is often required by the producer to geo-block.

soneil 10y ago

> I will pay you. Others will pay you. This will lower the license fee back home. As I understand it, this isn’t necessarily the case. I understand that the BBC actually investigated making iPlayer available in the US previously. The outcome was that cable networks told them they’d drop BBC America if it was to go ahead. For most networks in the US, BBCA sits in the middle tier - not a premium channel (eg HBO), but not in the basic package. It’s used as bait/value-add to provide incentive for customers to upgrade from the basic package. So for the networks, having the same content available online lowers its value. This is the basic crunch when it comes to geo-free online streaming vs traditional cable networks. We (customers) want both models available to us, but the two are in direct opposition. And in this case, it’d appear the traditional model is still winning, since BBC International decided that preserving BBCA’s income was more important. We tend to paint it as rather protectionist, but in most cases, the content-providers do have the option of walking. That they don’t want to, tells us that the existing model is still the more profitable. There’s not much we can do to fight it until this changes.

xg15 10y ago
Excuse the stupid question, but why is BBC still dependent on cross-selling to other cable networks and therefore to bow to their strategic interests? Why couldn't BBC market directly to ent-users as an internet streaming service?