7 ms·

The BBC is not free, in the UK everyone with a TV has to pay a yearly fee for it, you get ads because you don't pay the fee.

by balac 14y ago

hardtke 14y ago
Presumably the BBC outbid other British channels in a competitive bidding process. I suspect that broadcasters in the rest of the world know that 20 minutes of commercials per hour is unacceptable, so they don't bid as much as our networks. EDIT: The only source I could find indicates that the BBC paid about $100 million for broadcast rights to these games. That's 1/10th of what NBC paid, or about 1/2 of the American fees on a per capita basis.
- DrJokepu 14y ago
  In many countries (including the United Kingdom) the amount of commercials that can be broadcasted per hour on terrestrial broadcast is limited by law or other regulations. The UK is special in that the biggest broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are all publicly owned. Edit: as others have pointed out, ITV is not publicly owned, but Channel 4 (and obviously BBC) are.
  - polshaw 14y ago
    >The UK is special in that the biggest broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are all publicly owned. No, no, no. Only the BBC is 'publicly owned' (e: ok and channel 4 is although commercial- the point was definitely not ITV). They do have some regulatory requirements, though.
    - handelaar 14y ago
      Do tell us who you think owns Channel 4.
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    ITV is not publicly owned. Channel 4 is though [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Four_Television_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Four_Television_Corpora...
  - josephlord 14y ago
    I would also add Sky as one of the biggest broadcasters, certainly by revenue. They are commercial pay TV with some advertising broadcasting on their own satellite platform but with some of their channels also available on cable and terrestrial. Not everyone has the Sky channels. Yes BBC is fully public corporation of it's own unique type (Corporation by Royal Charter - I think). Largely license fee funded with the rest coming from its commercial arm selling content (mostly overseas) and also books, magazines and back catalogue content in the UK. Channel 4 is a normal company but government owned. Funded by ad revenue. ITV is mostly ad funded and fully commercial. It used to be a group of regional companies (a bit like US affiliates) but they have all merged to one big company.
    - DrJokepu 14y ago
      Due to my job, I work a lot with these broadcasters, especially Channel 4. From what I can tell, even though they are commercially funded, the folks over there in Horseferry Road try to take their "publicly owned" status seriously and try to act with the "public interest" (whatever that means) in mind. For example, I know that at least unofficially, they try really hard to help and support small, independent producers.
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    The US used to be one of those countries until Ronald Reagan signed a bill removing restrictions. "June 28, 1984: President Ronald Reagan signs 'The Cable Communications Act' into law. During his first term in office, President Ronald Reagan approved "The Cable Communications Act," groundbreaking legislation that, among other things, lifted time restrictions on television advertisements. The stage was now set for the long-form infomercial." http://news.yahoo.com/crazy-tv-products-evolution-infomercial-20101220-095800-280.html http://news.yahoo.com/crazy-tv-products-evolution-infomercia...
- jamescun 14y ago
  I believe the BBC gets it by default being the state broadcaster.
- josephlord 14y ago
  I believe that it is the last year of a pan-European deal between the IOC and the EBU/Eurovision which is the club of largely public service broadcasters from across Europe (quite widely defined not just the EU). The BBC has just done its own deal for the next few Olympics with the IOC.
gibybo 14y ago
How much is the fee? I suspect if given the choice between fee or commercials, many would choose the fee. Sadly that choice doesn't exist here (in the US) :/
- msbarnett 14y ago
  Per [1] the fee appears to be £145.50 a year, or roughly $229.10 USD according to Wolfram Alpha. [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licen...
  - aprendo 14y ago
    In Germany it’s €215.76 per year, so about $266. Similar, but I can’t help and feel that value for money is worse here. There is some real cool stuff the BBC does that just does not exist in Germany. But it seems that the Olympics will get pretty great coverage, also on the web. (There were, e.g., streams with and without commentary available tonight.)
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  £145.50 (US$228) per year. About £0.40 (US$0.65) per day. Excellent value in my opinion.
  - salem 14y ago
    That's a whole lot less than paying for cable to get ESPN
    - teamonkey 14y ago
      Most of the sports channels aren't covered by the licence fee, you still have to pay for cable (or Satellite) for them. The Olympics are one of the few exceptions.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Plus that includes a dozen or so radio stations, with permanent access to almost all of their program archives online. And an online PVR to watch all shows from the last week and a selection of older shows.
ralfn 14y ago
I was under the impression US networks are anything but free? I mean, guys like Viacom pay our cable companies for potential access to our eyeballs here in Holland. I heard they actually get paid by cable companies in the US. For jersey shore .. with adds. Way too many adds. Now, i dont know how much money ads bring to the table, but they could double my cable bill, (from 10 to 20 euros), if it would all be ad free.

The BBC is not free, in the UK everyone with a TV has to pay a yearly fee for it, you get ads because you don't pay the fee.

by balac 14y ago

The BBC is not free, in the UK everyone with a TV has to pay a yearly fee for it, you get ads because you don't pay the fee.

hardtke 14y ago

Presumably the BBC outbid other British channels in a competitive bidding process. I suspect that broadcasters in the rest of the world know that 20 minutes of commercials per hour is unacceptable, so they don't bid as much as our networks. EDIT: The only source I could find indicates that the BBC paid about $100 million for broadcast rights to these games. That's 1/10th of what NBC paid, or about 1/2 of the American fees on a per capita basis.

DrJokepu 14y ago
In many countries (including the United Kingdom) the amount of commercials that can be broadcasted per hour on terrestrial broadcast is limited by law or other regulations. The UK is special in that the biggest broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are all publicly owned. Edit: as others have pointed out, ITV is not publicly owned, but Channel 4 (and obviously BBC) are.
- polshaw 14y ago
  >The UK is special in that the biggest broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are all publicly owned. No, no, no. Only the BBC is 'publicly owned' (e: ok and channel 4 is although commercial- the point was definitely not ITV). They do have some regulatory requirements, though.
  - handelaar 14y ago
    Do tell us who you think owns Channel 4.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  ITV is not publicly owned. Channel 4 is though [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Four_Television_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Four_Television_Corpora...
- josephlord 14y ago
  I would also add Sky as one of the biggest broadcasters, certainly by revenue. They are commercial pay TV with some advertising broadcasting on their own satellite platform but with some of their channels also available on cable and terrestrial. Not everyone has the Sky channels. Yes BBC is fully public corporation of it's own unique type (Corporation by Royal Charter - I think). Largely license fee funded with the rest coming from its commercial arm selling content (mostly overseas) and also books, magazines and back catalogue content in the UK. Channel 4 is a normal company but government owned. Funded by ad revenue. ITV is mostly ad funded and fully commercial. It used to be a group of regional companies (a bit like US affiliates) but they have all merged to one big company.
  - DrJokepu 14y ago
    Due to my job, I work a lot with these broadcasters, especially Channel 4. From what I can tell, even though they are commercially funded, the folks over there in Horseferry Road try to take their "publicly owned" status seriously and try to act with the "public interest" (whatever that means) in mind. For example, I know that at least unofficially, they try really hard to help and support small, independent producers.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  The US used to be one of those countries until Ronald Reagan signed a bill removing restrictions. "June 28, 1984: President Ronald Reagan signs 'The Cable Communications Act' into law. During his first term in office, President Ronald Reagan approved "The Cable Communications Act," groundbreaking legislation that, among other things, lifted time restrictions on television advertisements. The stage was now set for the long-form infomercial." http://news.yahoo.com/crazy-tv-products-evolution-infomercial-20101220-095800-280.html http://news.yahoo.com/crazy-tv-products-evolution-infomercia...
jamescun 14y ago
I believe the BBC gets it by default being the state broadcaster.
josephlord 14y ago
I believe that it is the last year of a pan-European deal between the IOC and the EBU/Eurovision which is the club of largely public service broadcasters from across Europe (quite widely defined not just the EU). The BBC has just done its own deal for the next few Olympics with the IOC.

gibybo 14y ago

How much is the fee? I suspect if given the choice between fee or commercials, many would choose the fee. Sadly that choice doesn't exist here (in the US) :/

msbarnett 14y ago
Per [1] the fee appears to be £145.50 a year, or roughly $229.10 USD according to Wolfram Alpha. [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licen...
- aprendo 14y ago
  In Germany it’s €215.76 per year, so about $266. Similar, but I can’t help and feel that value for money is worse here. There is some real cool stuff the BBC does that just does not exist in Germany. But it seems that the Olympics will get pretty great coverage, also on the web. (There were, e.g., streams with and without commentary available tonight.)
andyjohnson0 14y ago
£145.50 (US$228) per year. About £0.40 (US$0.65) per day. Excellent value in my opinion.
- salem 14y ago
  That's a whole lot less than paying for cable to get ESPN
  - teamonkey 14y ago
    Most of the sports channels aren't covered by the licence fee, you still have to pay for cable (or Satellite) for them. The Olympics are one of the few exceptions.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Plus that includes a dozen or so radio stations, with permanent access to almost all of their program archives online. And an online PVR to watch all shows from the last week and a selection of older shows.

ralfn 14y ago

I was under the impression US networks are anything but free? I mean, guys like Viacom pay our cable companies for potential access to our eyeballs here in Holland. I heard they actually get paid by cable companies in the US. For jersey shore .. with adds. Way too many adds. Now, i dont know how much money ads bring to the table, but they could double my cable bill, (from 10 to 20 euros), if it would all be ad free.