8 ms·

The reason for these regulations is that the BBC can produce and offer things free at the point of use (broadly) because of an essentially forced payment. This

• mikehall314 7y ago
  The wider context here is that ministers have been arguing that the BBC is behind the times, because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now. Not only that, but an annual subscription to Netflix is cheaper than the BBC licence fee. The BBC have responded by pointing out that government regulators killed off their attempt to work with competitors to produce such a service over a decade ago (Project Kangaroo), and now they’re being criticised by government for not being one.
  • jacquesm 7y ago
    > because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. But not nearly enough value for what it costs in my opinion, and with the very limited programming it would become boring quickly.
    • whycombagator 7y ago
      > because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now > Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. The comment you quote says "the way people want to consume", but your comment is about the content itself. I think most people want the on-demand style, but of course everyone also wants there to be good content. Content being equal, do you think on-demand content is not the way most people would want to consume it?
      • angry_octet 7y ago
        When several people are potentially watching it can take a long time to reach consensus. Even by myself I've scrolled Netflix for 15 minutes and then turned it off, because I can't agree what I want to watch... In contrast, channels have content in sync with the rhythm of the day and the hour. You only have to choose the channel. I wish I could flick through channel streams at the speed I can flick through broadcast channels.
      • xbmcuser 7y ago
        His comment is pointless anyway he might not want to consume Netflix content but 100million paid subscribers do.
    • mikehall314 7y ago
      I understand the point, but whether it actually is the way people want to consume content or not is irrelevant — that is the accusation being levelled at the BBC, and specifically that they risk being “Blockbuster in the age of Netflix”.
  • chewxy 7y ago
    I used to work at the ABC (the aussie version of BBC). We have a pretty good streaming service called iview. It started ahead of the curve, 2 years before Netflix started its streaming service. While I wasn't there at the time, stories have been that iView faced government queries at the time for "wasting money" (and after sometime, the govt relented and funded it in 2013). This back and forth went on and on until today. Now, of course, the stories in the media is whether or not we should impose a quota on Australian content on external streaming services. All I can do is give that Annoyed Picard reaction.
  • cs02rm0 7y ago
    The BBC have responded by pointing out that government regulators killed off their attempt to work with competitors to produce such a service over a decade ago (Project Kangaroo), and now they’re being criticised by government for not being one. I don't think they're being criticised by government for not being a Netflix-style VOD service. The debate is as to whether they should be funded by the licence fee with all the restrictions that come with it to allow competition in the market vs. letting them do their own thing without the licence fee. The government do appear to be coming down on the side against the licence fee, but that could just be a negotiating position, at least for the foreseeable. No one as far as I can see is making the argument that a licence fee funded broadcaster should have taken that money and used it to launch a Netflix competitor.
    • michaelt 7y ago
      They've certainly been criticised for not "attracting and retaining younger audiences" who are "increasingly turning to subscription on demand services, such as Netflix" [1] which don't need TV licenses. Of course, a Rupert Murdoch type who wanted to shut down the BBC would argue that low viewing figures prove the injustice of forcing people to pay for a service they don't use, and therefore the justice of privatising; while high viewing figures prove the viability of the BBC as a subscription service, and therefore the viability of privatising. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/24/bbc-losing-generation-viewers-ofcom-warns/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/24/bbc-losing-gener...
  • EnderMB 7y ago
    Which is a crazy argument because iPlayer was ahead of the times for years before Netflix became a mainstream choice in UK households. Hell, the 2012 coverage of the London Olympics was still some of the best coverage I ever remember seeing of a sporting event.
    • thu2111 7y ago
      It's a bad argument for another reason. In 2009 there was a totally different government in power. It's weird to blame politicians today for decisions made by the opposing party over a decade ago. The BBC's problem is not iPlayer vs Netflix. It's that they aren't producing enough compelling content anymore to justify the tax that funds them. Additionally they keep angering ministers, who think they're biased and out of touch.
      • EnderMB 7y ago
        While I largely agree, I would attribute most of the BBC's issues down to simple budget cuts. A world-leading organisation had its funding reduced, and was eaten from the inside by those put in charge by the government. The government has always wanted to control the state broadcaster, and a decade ago people would've fought tooth and nail to keep the BBÇ alive. The decline in quality has been slow, but obvious from all sides, from sport coverage, to factual output, and most notably from the news and political front. Those people that would've fought for the BBC years ago are now those that want its funding removed entirely, and in my opinion it's a master-class in control from the Tories. The left have been played hard by the BBC. You're absolutely right in that it's not an iPlayer vs Netflix debate. It's an output issue, and that output has been eroded over 5-10 years.
        • thu2111 7y ago
          Maybe. I'd argue the funding has barely been cut at all. In 2010 excluding the over 75s it was 2.93 billion, in 2018 it was 3.17 billion: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/bbc-licence-fee-receipts-expenditure/ https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/... The over 75s grant has been cut a little bit but the actual gross revenues are higher now than they used to be. Funding isn't the BBCs problem. It is able to tax a growing population - that's the definition of increasing revenues. With billions of pounds to splash around it's really hard for them to plead poverty. The bigger issue is they produce a lot of content but it's increasingly narrowly targeted to, basically, the sort of thing Lib Dem voters in London like (and think other people should like). That's a small minority of the population.
  • johannes1234321 7y ago
    The even wider context is that the current government doesn't like media contradicting them.
• Karishma1234fff 7y ago
  Isnt uk a country where citizens need a 'license' to own a tv ?
  • heavenlyblue 7y ago
    The “tv license” is actually an incredibly narrow concept in the UK
    • ta999999171 7y ago
      Elaborate.
      • PaulRobinson 7y ago
        Not who you're replying to, but I've answered this in detail higher up in this thread.
  • cnorthwood 7y ago
    Not quite. The license is to receive broadcast signals (or watch iPlayer)
  • PaulRobinson 7y ago
    No, you can own a TV without a license. You must have a license to watch broadcast TV or use the BBC iPlayer (the online BBC-only streaming service). If you only use your TV(s) with a games console, to watch recorded content or streaming content over the Internet, you don't need to pay it. You are not required to provide access to an inspector from TV Licensing to confirm that your TV isn't hooked up to an aerial or satellite box, but it makes life easier if you do. The license fee costs £154.50 a year, or £52 if you only have a black and white TV (lord knows how given we're now 100% digital), but the government pays it for you if you're over 75 years of age. This produces an income of ~£3.5 billion a year, and broadly breaks down into 55% spent on TV broadcasting, 17% radio broadcasting, 10% for the BBC World Service and the rest of it goes on the website, various apps, collecting the fee itself and the transmitter network across the country used by all terrestrial broadcasters, not just the BBC. It also pays slabs of cash into the EBU who produce the Eurovision Song Contest, amongst other things... This results in nine national TV channels, 10 UK-wide radio stations, six national (i.e. England, Wales, Scotland, NI only), and 40 local radio stations. The BBC website, iPlayer, apps in the App Stores, etc. are all paid for through this as well. If you're outside the UK you will see adverts as it can't subsidise access for non-UK citizens, but inside the UK all this content is 100% free of all advertising other than to cross-promote BBC content. In recent months the Government have suggested that it's an unfair burden. There are two sides to this truth: 1. Most magistrate courts seem to spend a significant amount of their time dealing with non-payers, and there are people in prison for non-payment. IIRC, it's the most common crime committed by incarcerated women in the UK. For context, it's worth noting that the incarceration rate in the UK is about 1/5th of the USA's so the actual number is still quite low, but still... 2. Most people think scrapping it is a political move, because there are weird power dynamics between Downing Street, the execs in charge of BBC News and the rest of the BBC who seem to have problems with the News division and their friendliness with Downing Street and the PM in particular. As a result, I think most people would prefer that the license was cheaper, the penalty for non-payment could not include prison and that we keep it.
• C1sc0cat 7y ago
  You are repeating News Internationals talking points here a lot of the pressure on the BBC also comes from Rupert Murdoch
  • mprev 7y ago
    Does that mean you're repeating The Guardian's talking points? Or is it possible that a person might hold views that overlap with those perceived also to be put forward by media organisations? The BBC's success risks suffocating commercial media. Put too many restrictions on the BBC and the risk is of suffocating the BBC. It seems reasonable to me that the government should attempt to find a balance. And, being a government staffed by humans, they make the wrong call sometimes.
    • C1sc0cat 7y ago
      Ah the cookie cutter rubbish commercial radio stations. And the GMG is no friend to the BBC and has been know to run hit pieces
      • mprev 7y ago
        Yeah, local radio in the UK is mostly rubbish. BBC and commercial. Commercial local radio has been freed of most of the licensing stipulations that required distinctive local programming or specific types of programming. That is a shame but it doesn't follow that all commercial media has to be rubbish. On balance, I think the BBC has been a good thing for the UK. However, it's undeniable that the BBC's presence has made it harder for commercial providers to flourish.
    • Lio 7y ago
      The BBC has already been constrained and this has not had the desired outcome. Commercial British media companies have not filled the void and have not delivered revenue from new export markets. Instead foreign owned firms including Netflix and Amazon have cornered the UK market.
• dependenttypes 7y ago
  I never understood why they did not just make all the BBC channels subscription-only.
  • mellosouls 7y ago
    Because that would undermine the entire point of the BBC: to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission It's not a commercial broadcaster.
    • parkersweb 7y ago
      This. So many of the arguments about the license fee seem to miss the point - the BBC isn't a commercial broadcaster. Impartiality and 'public service' as fundamental tenets that drive output would disappear if they had to chase subscriptions.
      • dependenttypes 7y ago
        > if they had to chase subscriptions They already pretty much do that for their tv channels and iplayer with the tv licenses. Regardless of that, I do not see how subscriptions would damage impartiality.
• teh_klev 7y ago
  > The reason for these regulations is that the BBC can produce and offer things free at the point of use But this wouldn't have been "free": As the director of technology and new media at the BBC, Highfield had just overseen the launch of the iPlayer – BBC's online catch-up service. Now he wanted to try and build a commercial equivalent that would earn more. You'd have paid for the service on top of, the now included with license fee, broadcast/iPlayer. Now sure the BBC may have had some advantage over nascent offerings at the time (2007), but let's face these realistically didn't exist in the UK. What we have now is the market controlled by two US companies (and Sky to an extent) that exploit tax loopholes and don't treat their employee's terribly well (certainly in the case of Amazon).
  • IanCal 7y ago
    Yes, but the regulations are best explained using free as the example because for a significant amount of the work they are not legally allowed to charge or (e.g.) show adverts. The practical reality is that you can replace "free" with "below cost". Unless this was funded entirely from worldwide, it would be using a source of funding not available to others. > Now sure the BBC may have had some advantage over nascent offerings at the time (2007), but let's face these realistically didn't exist in the UK Yes, which is again kind of the point - there was a space for offerings to come in and compete against each other. The ruling was that Kangaroo would likely stop this competition, including stopping competition between the BBC/ITV/C4. There was still a fight to get YouView past the competition stage (canvas back when I worked on the apps, AS2 & constrained video memory was... interesting).