TV LICENCE - BBC

[exilecanada]

As for the original topic. I get my fair share (and maybe more) of quality TV through the BBC.

I subscribe to Britbox in order to receive BBC and ITV programming, which are in my opinion head and shoulders above the pathetically bad US programming shoved down our throats. Major US networks exist for one reason, which is to keep the viewer’s mildly entertained until it’s time for the all important commercial break. The two major Canadian networks, CTV and CBC, produce some decent nature and current affairs programming but other than those it’s pretty much cr*p. I gave up my cable TV because most programmes got to the point of being unwatchable due to the amount of commercial breaks. All in all you guys should be proud of the programming originating in UK

[Rowls]

I subscribe to Britbox in order to receive BBC and ITV programming, which are in my opinion head and shoulders above the pathetically bad US programming shoved down our throats. Major US networks exist for one reason, which is to keep the viewer’s mildly entertained until it’s time for the all important commercial break. The two major Canadian networks, CTV and CBC, produce some decent nature and current affairs programming but other than those it’s pretty much cr*p. I gave up my cable TV because most programmes got to the point of being unwatchable due to the amount of commercial breaks. All in all you guys should be proud of the programming originating in UK

Great to hear.

Britbox only had a tiny fraction of the BBC's output.

Hopefully if they change the BBC's charter you'll be able to subscribe to the BBC directly in the future and gain access to the radio stations and the back catalogue.

[aggi]

Yes but they have to go through conduits.

Why not allow a series of direct packages to access BBC content abroad? It's daft and pointless.

You mean Britbox International, the international stremaing service owned by the BBC with BBC content, or BBC Select, the documentary streaming service, or BBC Podcasts Premium, the podcast service? Seems quite a lot of direct packages.

Obviously they're not just going to broadcast BBC channels overseas, rights are massively complicated. If they wanted to broadcast BBC One overseas it would have loads of gaps in it.

But £2bn revenue doesn't seem to line up to can't sell their output ...

[It Is What It Is]

The new system whenever or whatever it will be...will certainly cost more and shedloads of ads.
Better the devil you know

[exilecanada]

Great to hear.

Britbox only had a tiny fraction of the BBC's output.

Hopefully if they change the BBC's charter you'll be able to subscribe to the BBC directly in the future and gain access to the radio stations and the back catalogue.

That 'tiny fraction' is miles better than the US garbage I listen to UK radio stations using Roku.

[dougcollins]

Do they still have those old commer van tv detectors with wobbly ariels, like a low-budget 60's sci fi?

[nil_desperandum]

The new system whenever or whatever it will be...will certainly cost more and shedloads of ads.
Better the devil you know

That's my take on it too.
As in other neighbouring countries there'll still be some form of TV tax even if the BBC License Fee is abolished
Apparently the average "TV Tax" per annum in the EU is 124 Euros, these countries don't have the BBC, and in general you pay it whether you have a TV or not!

[Rowls]

You mean Britbox International, the international stremaing service owned by the BBC with BBC content, or BBC Select, the documentary streaming service, or BBC Podcasts Premium, the podcast service? Seems quite a lot of direct packages.

No. I mean access directly to BBC output like we get in the UK.

[aggi]

No. I mean access directly to BBC output like we get in the UK.

I guess that's a nice idea but it's hopelessly naive in terms of the commercial reality.

If the BBC attempted to do that then either its cost base would massively increase as they would have to pay many multiples of what they pay now to get worldwide distribution rights or the shows broadcast would take a huge dive in terms of quality/quantity.

There'd be no more world cup coverage for instance, or wimbledon, or MOTD or the majority of films that it broadcasts.

You're complaining they don't do something which is virtually impossible and makes terrible business sense.

[quoonbeatz]

Surprised to read rowls has no idea what he’s talking about.

[Rowls]

I guess that's a nice idea but it's hopelessly naive in terms of the commercial reality.

If the BBC attempted to do that then either its cost base would massively increase as they would have to pay many multiples of what they pay now to get worldwide distribution rights or the shows broadcast would take a huge dive in terms of quality/quantity.

There'd be no more world cup coverage for instance, or wimbledon, or MOTD or the majority of films that it broadcasts.

You're complaining they don't do something which is virtually impossible and makes terrible business sense.

Aggi, we're talking about the stuff the BBC makes. The BBC *owns* those rights.

How does it make "terrible business sense" to sell their stuff directly, worldwide like netflix does?

Do you know what currently stops anyone in the world with a VPN from watching the BBC completely free of charge? It's that button that asks if you've got a TV license.

Hopelessly naive indeed.

[ArmchairDetective]

That is correct. Justifications come after emotions - that's the way 99.9% of human thinking works. Same for all of us.

But it doesn't mean that our justifications are therefore wrong.

I'd love to know where you pulled that 99.9% figure from as I'm not sure it's that black and white. But I think it will send this thread completely off topic

[Foshiznik]

Aggi, we're talking about the stuff the BBC makes. The BBC *owns* those rights.

How does it make "terrible business sense" to sell their stuff directly, worldwide like netflix does?

Do you know what currently stops anyone in the world with a VPN from watching the BBC completely free of charge? It's that button that asks if you've got a TV license.

Hopelessly naive indeed.

Do you ever post anything without sounding condescending or confrontational?

The BBC charter and standards mean that their licensing model is for broadcasting as they fund national terrestrial television mediums as their main product unlike Netflix who are selling a streaming service directly to their viewers. It’s why you will find most shows on iPlayer disappear after 30 days unless they are rebroadcast (usually in the middle of the night, on a random BBC channel) so that they can renew their broadcasting licence another 30 days.

It’s why about a decade ago a BBC Global iPlayer was attempted and quickly ran out of money when launched in in a few countries like Canada and Australia as they could only offer up older shows that no longer came under a broadcast license.

[Big Vinny K]

The quality of programmes made by the BBC is incredible for the license fee we pay. Countries like America, Canada and others in Europe watching TV is far more expensive and the quality nowhere near what we get.

The model works now. They make a lot of great and original programmes and then sell the rights across the world. The significant income they get back from this allows them to reinvest that money into making more great television and again sell the rights worldwide.

Allowing people overseas access directly to their output is a completely different model - you lose the ability to sell the rights and you are then into a subscription and very probably advertising model.

The other issue with a Netflix type model would be the ridiculous amount of money they have to pay to people in them now. It’s no coincidence that pretty much every big movie star in the world has appeared in multiple series on Netflix, Prime, Paramount etc. They are getting paid more for these than for the movie roles. The BBC would find it difficult to compete with this and they have shown with their model that they do not need to.

If the current BBC model changes in the future it will be interesting to see. They are regularly reviewing options and they are an extremely successful organisation so if they change they will need to be very confident it’s going to be better than what they have now - which is going to be pretty hard to achieve.

[Rowls]

edit - duplicate

[Rowls]

Do you ever post anything without sounding condescending or confrontational?

NB: I was responding to somebody who had labelled what I'd said as "hopelessly naive" and "virtually impossible" despite the fact that I'm only talking about the BBC doing what Netflix already does.

The BBC charter and standards mean that their licensing model is for broadcasting as they fund national terrestrial television mediums as their main product unlike Netflix who are selling a streaming service directly to their viewers. It’s why you will find most shows on iPlayer disappear after 30 days unless they are rebroadcast (usually in the middle of the night, on a random BBC channel) so that they can renew their broadcasting licence another 30 days.

It’s why about a decade ago a BBC Global iPlayer was attempted and quickly ran out of money when launched in in a few countries like Canada and Australia as they could only offer up older shows that no longer came under a broadcast license.

Well yes, this is precisely my point. Change the charter and update the broadcast licenses. This isn't "hopelessly naive" and neither is it "virtually impossible". It just requires the will to do it and people with the right mental attitude to get on with doing it.

[Rowls]

The model works now. They make a lot of great and original programmes and then sell the rights across the world. The significant income they get back from this allows them to reinvest that money into making more great television and again sell the rights worldwide.

Allowing people overseas access directly to their output is a completely different model - you lose the ability to sell the rights and you are then into a subscription and very probably advertising model.

The other issue with a Netflix type model would be the ridiculous amount of money they have to pay to people in them now. It’s no coincidence that pretty much every big movie star in the world has appeared in multiple series on Netflix, Prime, Paramount etc. They are getting paid more for these than for the movie roles. The BBC would find it difficult to compete with this and they have shown with their model that they do not need to.

If the current BBC model changes in the future it will be interesting to see. They are regularly reviewing options and they are an extremely successful organisation so if they change they will need to be very confident it’s going to be better than what they have now - which is going to be pretty hard to achieve.

The current model is creaking under the straing of modern technology.

As I've said before. The only thing stopping anybody in the world with a VPN from getting the entirely contents of the BBC for free is that button that says "Yes, I have a TV License".

The BBC needs its charter updating and quickly even if the only change means it can put up a paywall.

[Papabendi]

Netflix has 282 million subscribers worldwide. It's £11/month for a advert-free subscription. That's £132/year.

If the BBC had half that number of worldwide subscribers it would pay for the entirety of its annual budget and could be completely free for us in the UK.

I don't suppose there are any set up costs, running costs and marketing costs with doing that, Rowls? It took rather a long time for Netflix to make any money (I will add in its defence, Netflix did have large programming costs to amortise). And the BBC does not own all the content it airs in the UK. So your assumption that it could gain half the number of subscribers Netflix has is rather a large one too.

BBC Studios is a fairly efficient way to recoup money for the BBC abroad. Your argument above is similar to the one made about the PL setting up its own service abroad. Funnily enough it is yet to do this.

The BBC like any organisation is imperfect, it is attacked by both the left and the right politically so is probably doing a reasonable job overall re impartiality. If you are to ask yourself what your TV highlights are in a given year, either in terms of capturing significant moments live, or making great drama relevant to a British audience, the BBC still does a great job despite declining budgets. Only over Xmas we saw Gavin and Stacey and Wallace & Gromit pull in audiences of 20m +. these are huge in today's viewing climate.

Tampering with the formula may well happen and very well have to happen, but it's very much a case of be careful what you wish for.

[aggi]

Aggi, we're talking about the stuff the BBC makes. The BBC *owns* those rights.

How does it make "terrible business sense" to sell their stuff directly, worldwide like netflix does?

Do you know what currently stops anyone in the world with a VPN from watching the BBC completely free of charge? It's that button that asks if you've got a TV license.

Hopelessly naive indeed.

So when you're talking about "BBC output like we get in the UK" you only mean the stuff produced by the BBC, not everything that we can watch in the UK? In that case we're back to Britbox and BBC Select again and what you're complaining about already exists. Obviously only a small proportion of what is broadcast on the BBC is produced by the BBC.

Like most streaming services the BBC plays whack-a-mole with VPNs and the like trying to block them whilst new nodes are set up. Streaming services were ahead of the game at one point but are now struggling to keep up, doubtless that will switch again at some point.

[Big Vinny K]

The current model is creaking under the straing of modern technology.

As I've said before. The only thing stopping anybody in the world with a VPN from getting the entirely contents of the BBC for free is that button that says "Yes, I have a TV License".

The BBC needs its charter updating and quickly even if the only change means it can put up a paywall.

You keep on referencing the VPN to BBC like they are the only one that have this issue. You can access any channel on Sky, Netflix or any other network without subscription and by masking it with a VPN irrespective of paywall or not. Tens of millions of people round the world do it every day. Why do you think putting up a paywall is going to make an ounce of difference ?
Do you seriously think they would have as many subscribers willing to pay as they do people who actually pay their TV license ?

If you look at dwindling subscription numbers of all networks in the last few years as a result of illegal streaming then you would have to charge goodness knows how much a month for the BBC to bring in the same amount of revenue as they get now from the license fee. And even then you would still have little clue as to how many people would subscribe in the following year given the rate at which illegal streaming is on the rise. How do you think people in America, Canada, ex pats in Spain, Australia etc are accessing most BBC content now ? Do you seriously think they’d stop doing this if the BBC introduced a paywall ?

[Rowls]

I don't suppose there are any set up costs, running costs and marketing costs with doing that, Rowls? It took rather a long time for Netflix to make any money (I will add in its defence, Netflix did have large programming costs to amortise).

Of course there are. But most of them have already been met in terms of creating the streaming service - the iPlayer. It' essentially ready to go. Just needs a paywall instead of the old 'honesty button'.

And the BBC does not own all the content it airs in the UK. So your assumption that it could gain half the number of subscribers Netflix has is rather a large one too.

It was putting forward a scenario put forward to make a point about monetizing content. It was definitely not "an assumption".

BBC Studios is a fairly efficient way to recoup money for the BBC abroad. Your argument above is similar to the one made about the PL setting up its own service abroad. Funnily enough it is yet to do this.

The BBC charter forbids it from charging. That's why it has to sell via a third party company and this means they can't do use the iPlayer as a worldwide subscription service.

The BBC like any organisation is imperfect, it is attacked by both the left and the right politically so is probably doing a reasonable job overall re impartiality. If you are to ask yourself what your TV highlights are in a given year, either in terms of capturing significant moments live, or making great drama relevant to a British audience, the BBC still does a great job despite declining budgets. Only over Xmas we saw Gavin and Stacey and Wallace & Gromit pull in audiences of 20m +. these are huge in today's viewing climate.

I don't think anybody is disputing these platitudes.

Tampering with the formula may well happen and very well have to happen, but it's very much a case of be careful what you wish for.

Perfectly understandable sentiments. There are risks. But there are also even potentially even larger rewards. And then there is also the damage that will be caused by doing nothing - that honesty button needs to go.

****

More and more people are refusing to pay their TV Licenses. It's worked very well in the UK for nearly a century but it's just not working anymore. The license fee is on the brink of collapse because of non-payment. There's simply nothing to stop people from around the world accessing the BBC for nothing and that's not a tenable or sustainable position.

It's not a doom and gloom situation. It's also an opportunity to renew the BBC and open up new avenues of income.

[Rowls]

You keep on referencing the VPN to BBC like they are the only one that have this issue. You can access any channel on Sky, Netflix or any other network without subscription and by masking it with a VPN irrespective of paywall or not. Tens of millions of people round the world do it every day. Why do you think putting up a paywall is going to make an ounce of difference ?
Do you seriously think they would have as many subscribers willing to pay as they do people who actually pay their TV license ?

If you look at dwindling subscription numbers of all networks in the last few years as a result of illegal streaming then you would have to charge goodness knows how much a month for the BBC to bring in the same amount of revenue as they get now from the license fee. And even then you would still have little clue as to how many people would subscribe in the following year given the rate at which illegal streaming is on the rise. How do you think people in America, Canada, ex pats in Spain, Australia etc are accessing most BBC content now ? Do you seriously think they’d stop doing this if the BBC introduced a paywall ?

There might well be ways around paywalls but having a VPN isn't one of them.

Illegal streaming is an issue for everybody but the issue for the BBC is that they are forbidden -by their own charter- of putting a paywall up to protect their content. This doesn't apply to any other service. It is unique to the BBC.

[Rowls]

So when you're talking about "BBC output like we get in the UK" you only mean the stuff produced by the BBC, not everything that we can watch in the UK? In that case we're back to Britbox and BBC Select again and what you're complaining about already exists. Obviously only a small proportion of what is broadcast on the BBC is produced by the BBC.

Like most streaming services the BBC plays whack-a-mole with VPNs and the like trying to block them whilst new nodes are set up. Streaming services were ahead of the game at one point but are now struggling to keep up, doubtless that will switch again at some point.

I'd say a large proportion of what is shown on the BBC is produced by the BBC. Either in house or commissioned. Either way, they would be able to exercise rights on it.

Yes, it would be like Britbox but it wouldn't be exactly the same - it could offer a lot more.

[Big Vinny K]

There might well be ways around paywalls but having a VPN isn't one of them.

Illegal streaming is an issue for everybody but the issue for the BBC is that they are forbidden -by their own charter- of putting a paywall up to protect their content. This doesn't apply to any other service. It is unique to the BBC.

But what is the point of putting up a paywall ? If (or when) they think there’s a point they can change the charter and introduce a paywall - it’s not that difficult at all technically.

As I have said if they lose their rights to sell by introducing subscription to people outside the UK and believe they are going to get far less subscriber revenue than rights revenue then there is no point doing it.

My guess would be that there are many networks that right now would absolutely love to have the same model as BBC. I do not get why you think it’s commercially viable to change the current model.

[Papabendi]

Rowls - creating a front porch for a service is step one of a job. However in that respect the iplayer wouldn't work as it has no payment mechanism or geoblocking or language functionalities e.g. all the content would need to be dubbed or subbed into many different languages. Very costly as an on going cost.

Even once those costs have been factored in, they will be small relative to the on-running costs of a subscription service in a 100+ markets, marketing, subscriber management.

What you are proposing would have the BBC making a loss for 5 years vs the 2bn it makes overseas today. Non starter.

[Papabendi]

I'd say a large proportion of what is shown on the BBC is produced by the BBC. Either in house or commissioned. Either way, they would be able to exercise rights on it.

Yes, it would be like Britbox but it wouldn't be exactly the same - it could offer a lot more.

you'd say- or do you actually know?

[Big Vinny K]

you'd say- or do you actually know?

My guess would be that he has zero clue whether this is the case or not.
It’s simply how he debates on any thread - facts don’t matter. The only thing you need when you are digging deeper and deeper is a big spade.

[aggi]

I'd say a large proportion of what is shown on the BBC is produced by the BBC. Either in house or commissioned. Either way, they would be able to exercise rights on it.

Yes, it would be like Britbox but it wouldn't be exactly the same - it could offer a lot more.

Well a lot of the run of the mill stuff: Homes under the Hammer, Bargain Hunt, etc is but a lot of the big draw stuff isn't.

Look at last night's primetime, the One Show and Eastenders are BBC produced (plus the news) but Pointless, the Repair Shop, Traitors and Champions League show aren't.

Expecting a massive number of subscribers whilst stripping out the major draws doesn't tally.

[Foshiznik]

It’s not as simple as just the charter stopping them. As I said earlier they tried a global iPlayer model in selected markets and it failed miserably.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32718259

[Papabendi]

My guess would be that he has zero clue whether this is the case or not.
It’s simply how he debates on any thread - facts don’t matter. The only thing you need when you are digging deeper and deeper is a big spade.

I guess the information age has emboldened people with the idea that easy accessible info on a topic immediately arms them with deep knowledge when in actual fact it remains shallow.



It may surprise few to learn that a global iPlayer has been considered in much detail by many smart people at the BBC with the deepest knowledge and it hasn't happened. There might be some good reasons for it that go beyond some ideation on Up The Clarets.

[Rowls]

I guess the information age has emboldened people with the idea that easy accessible info on a topic immediately arms them with deep knowledge when in actual fact it remains shallow.



It may surprise few to learn that a global iPlayer has been considered in much detail by many smart people at the BBC with the deepest knowledge and it hasn't happened. There might be some good reasons for it that go beyond some ideation on Up The Clarets.

Even if it were just ex-pats abroad paying for the service it would make sense. It would be so easy to achieve.

It isn't something that needs in depth knowledge of negotiating broadcasting rights, it only needs for me to be able to form opinions independently.

The attitude of people constantly saying "oh it can't be done" and the negativity that some people exude are becoming a real cultural problem. When these kind of attitudes become prominent, society is held back.

The BBC being able to sell its service directly is so simple and yet people want to make it sound like it's something trickier than sending men to the moon.

[Rowls]

Take a look at the article and read it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32718259

Service was closed down not because it wasn't working but because the BBC was basically blackmailed by other broadcasters who were (rightly) worried the BBC would eat into their market share.

Rather proves my point about the potential they would have.

[Rowls]

Essentially the global iPlayer was always only ever described as a "pilot" scheme (ho-hum) and was scuppered by US pay-TV operators.

Transmission TV is a dying medium. So those US pay-TV operators are a dwindling force.

If I had money and was a betting man I'd wager that one day in the not-so-distant future you'll be able to purchase access to the BBC is a manner extremely similar to what I've described.

To all the naysayers and merchants of doom out there - lighten up. Bring some positivity into your life. Look on the light side. Brighten up.

Are you an American? Or are you an American't? Choose your team.

[Papabendi]

Take a look at the article and read it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32718259

Service was closed down not because it wasn't working but because the BBC was basically blackmailed by other broadcasters who were (rightly) worried the BBC would eat into their market share.

Rather proves my point about the potential they would have.

The service in your article that shut down many years ago and the service you are describing is similar to comparing Mo Salah with Peter Mumby as footballers.

It is entirely possible to build a global iPlayer. The question is whether it makes any sense to do so. It doesn't. Time to move on now. Cheers.

[Big Vinny K]

Even if it were just ex-pats abroad paying for the service it would make sense. It would be so easy to achieve.

It isn't something that needs in depth knowledge of negotiating broadcasting rights, it only needs for me to be able to form opinions independently.

The attitude of people constantly saying "oh it can't be done" and the negativity that some people exude are becoming a real cultural problem. When these kind of attitudes become prominent, society is held back.

The BBC being able to sell its service directly is so simple and yet people want to make it sound like it's something trickier than sending men to the moon.

This is a new tactic of debate for you Rowls - NOT

When posters with a lot more knowledge about a subject start posting silly things like facts and logical rationale you start to drive your car down a different road !

Now everyone is negative and we all need to lighten up ?!!! Why is being negative explaining how good the current BBC model is ? Loads of positive comments about the BBC service and current revenue model on this thread.

In fact are you not pretty much the only poster being negative about the BBC ? What’s up with you man ? Why do you hate a great British institution like Aunty Beeb ? Show a stiff upper lip fellow. Don’t be a sheep and follow the other networks round the world. Get a grip man. This is what makes Britain Great Britain Etc etc etc…..

Actually I am quite enjoying this Boris Johnson / Trumpesque way of debating. Who needs facts and common sense when you can just shout louder and write ******** on the side of a bus ?!!

[exilecanada]

It’s why about a decade ago a BBC Global iPlayer was attempted and quickly ran out of money when launched in in a few countries like Canada and Australia as they could only offer up older shows that no longer came under a broadcast license.

I had BBC Canada included in my basic cable package for a couple of years. They broadcast re-runs of really bad comedies such as Mrs Browns Boys, Last of the Summer Wine and Miranda plus other assorted cr*p, it didn't last long

[deanothedino]

I look at what I get / have got when I’ve subscribed to SKY, Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon, Disney, Paramount and I actually think that the BBC holds its own.

But to subscribe to any of those services that are showing shows live you also have to pay the licence fee. The BBC has a competitive advantage in the UK that it has forced subscribers, it shouldn't be holding its own... it should be leading the way.