Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I didn't say I disliked the licence fee, its probably the most efficient way to fund the BBC. I just said its not illegal for the BBC to go down a subscription model, should the Government decide to do so. And no, I don't think that is a reality any time soon.

But your argument about them being a world broadcaster, with huge revenues and employing masses of staff could also be used as an argument for privatising them.

If they're so good, let them stand on their own two feet and seek out other means of funding. I'm not saying this is necessarily my view, but I wouldn't rule it out.

I note you call them a business....;) of course they're not, but perhaps they should be??

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

As promised, my views on this are as follows.

Point 1. We all know, I think, that Netflix prices will increase somewhat from the present £8.99 as we get more and better content still in the future. I would expect that to increase to about £20 pm in real terms if they succeed in giving us the full works including studio deals allowing them to show first run films following the pay per view period (currently held by Sky).

Now, that would be a lot to pay for those who can barely afford the licence fee, and therefore to maximise income, Netflix may well structure their prices into tiers, allowing the present service to continue to be available for about £10 pm. Assuming that the licence fee becomes a subscription, this would be a good alternative to the terrestrials for cash strapped families. At £120 per month, this provides a cheaper alternative than the current licence fee. They would still get the free to air terrestrials, minus the BBC channels but plus Netflix. If they preferred, they could simply subscribe to Now TV and get access to the Sky channels at less than they pay now for the licence fee.

Flitting between streaming services no doubt would also take place. If, as I have speculated, Netflix and others decide to force subscribers into annual deals (as Amazon does now), those who can only afford one service will have the opportunity to change services at 12 monthly intervals. That would give less well off people a much better choice over time than they get now. What is not to like?

Point 2. I am not quite sure why you don't understand my paragraph. If it is the reasoning that you are questioning, I assume that the confusion is expressed in the questions that you ask under your second paragraph. My response to that is that I fail to see why you question how subscriptions would be paid.

There are plenty of streaming services operating by subscription currently, including pay per view (eg Google Play) and they don't have a problem collecting subscriptions. There are, however, certain difficulties with collecting BBC subscriptions given that the BBC channels are available via aerials and without a box. The Government is looking at that and believes that a technical solution will be available by the time the next review takes place. We haven't been told (to the best of my knowledge) what that solution will entail.

Pay per view viewing is indeed expensive and is only worthwhile when watching a limited number of programmes offered on this basis. Personally, I prefer paying by subscription.

Point 3. Yes, I am saying there is more content on Netflix than on Sky. It's better quality overall as well. There may be a lot of content on Sky's channels but a very high proportion is very dumbed down material which (in my view) should not be allowed as it is brain numbing to the extreme! Sorry, controversial comment there.

Point 4. Well, my comments about advertising have been related to commercials. I have no problem whatsoever with advertising banners on the sites themselves, I just don't want them to interrupt my viewing.

I do watch PPV programmes occasionally, but frankly my subscriptions pay for almost all of my pay TV viewing.

Point 5. Reading previous posts, I thought you had not actually seen Now TV, my apologies if I was wrong about that (there are too many posts to trawl through!). My point was that although there are advertisements on Now TV, they are only contained within the small linear broadcast TV section of that site (in other words, the same channels that you get on Sky TV). However, the streaming videos available on Now TV do not contain advertisements. I was certainly not questioning your understanding of what linear broadcast TV was!

I do not distinguish between 'catch up' and 'streaming videos' on Now TV. I would not regard the last few series of 'Aquarius' as 'catch up', which I would tend to regard as services enabling you to see programmes that were broadcast last week (now last month for most 'catch up' players). I guess you could regard all previously broadcast programmes as 'catch up', but I don't think that is a common interpretation.

For the record (I have said this before), my viewing is almost exclusively via my own recordings, Netflix, Now TV, Amazon and the various players. I hardly ever watch anything live - even the News is recorded for viewing when I am ready to watch it.

You are correct in saying you cannot record from Now TV. As to whether Now TV subscribers actually prefer live TV cluttered with commercials or the streaming videos of the same programmes and more on that platform I will leave to conjecture unless someone has the figures. Unless you love to waste your time with commercials, I would suggest that most people just choose the videos on there and watch them.

Sky may choose to promote the live TV because they make more advertising money from you the more you watch by that method, but frankly, given the choice before you when you get into Now TV, why would you choose to watch programmes that way? Incidentally, the 'catch up' part of the service is the same as any other 'catch up' service, but there are no ads on Now TV videos.

Point 6. I think you will see a growing tendency for the services with global reach buying up all the exclusives because they will simply outbid the national broadcasting companies with their bigger wallets. Sky are riding high at the moment and indeed they have recently secured a deal with Showtime. However, I think we are nearing an end to this era and things will be looking very different not that long from now. Only time will prove this to you.

Point 7. Yes, I am sure that these channels will be milking their exclusive content for all its worth before they release their shows to the global companies. However, they will ultimately sell them on to make even more money for those programmes. There are already signs that these channels are not only using their players for catch up, but also for displaying other programmes they have made or commissioned. For example, All 4 has three series of 'Indian Summers' on it, despite the fact that only series 1 has aired on Channel 4. It is possible that the channels could avoid selling on their programmes by substantially expanding their own sites and allowing them to be accessed globally.

Of course, the likes of BBC, Channel 4, Fox and Universal could decide to pull their content from the streaming providers if they wished to do so, but how do you think that would actually affect Netflix and Amazon, who get their programmes and films from a variety of sources and are now even making their own content?

I hope that this addresses all the points you have made, Harry. Let me know if you think there is anything I have missed. ;)

---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Laws can be changed, Chris. The Conservatives have not disguised their preference to force the BBC into a subscription based model.

Putting commercials onto the BBC will not be popular with the public but converting the licence fee into a subscription would address the complaints made by those who say they are forced to pay this fee even though they don't watch or listen to the BBC.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I think you'll find individual conservative MPs, speaking their own opinions, may have floated the idea. There is a vast difference between the opinions of individual MPs and party policy.

As usual, OB, you're having difficulty processing facts. The facts are:
1. Public service broadcasting, funded by commercials, is a long established precedent in the UK.
2. The most successful subscription-funded entertainment channel broadcaster in the UK (Sky) also has to run adverts to make ends meet. You can't use subscription as an alternative to advertising. You have to use both together.

Locking the BBC behind subscription would destroy it almost overnight because its entire operation is based on mass appeal and audience levels you simply can't get if you're behind a paywall. For that reason, it will never be the policy of any mainstream UK party, and even if it were, the legal challenges would go on for so long as to make it impossible to deliver.

You are of course free to speculate to your heart's content, but there is a qualitative difference between predicting future events based on past and current trends, and predicting the future as an exercise in wish fulfilment.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And you still haven't answered my question from a few weeks back. How much would you be prepared to pay, in the extremely unlikely event, that it did go to the subscription model?

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Well in my opinion it will never go to the subscription model but in the unlikely event if it did l think we would be talking about £15 a month at least PB and maybe more then that.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

I agree. However OLDBOY admits he uses BBC content. I just want to know how much he would be prepare to pay.

A price rise, and a fairly big one, would have to happen in the extremely unlikely event, it did go to subscription.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

£180 a year to watch the BBC thanks but no thanks.:td:

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

And the price l stated per month is probably more near the bottom end of the scale.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Which is why a subscription model is a nonsense.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Exactly.

In truth it would have to be a lot higher than that, if the BBC were to try to maintain its current level of output and also avoid running adverts, because not everyone would subscribe.

Making the BBC a subscription service is an utterly brainless idea, touted by people who just can't get over the licence fee.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

So you think it's perfectly fair to charge for a service that is not used? Strange logic.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

To be honest, I don't know. I guess it would depend on what was on offer.

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Well, there are those who say that most people would elect to keep watching the BBC. If that were the case, it is probably the case that the subscription would not have to be much more than it is now. They could probably keep the subscription very close to what it is now with some sensible savings.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Pretty sure that every household must use at least one BBC service be it radio, internet or TV and the BBC World Service is designed to help everyone by influencing thinking in unfriendly countries and putting across a positive face of the UK. Plenty of other services that I pay for eg schools that I don't use.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Schooling is something of a necessity, a TV license is not... imo

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Sorry OB, I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that.

10% opting out would reduce the budget dramatically.

The BBC are under so much financial pressure, and so much scrutiny, that they are already looking at cost cutting anyway. So don't expect that to contribute to a lower subscription cost in the distant future
.

Re: The future for linear TV channels
 

Its lovely listening to OB views but he does try rather hard to convince himself of the impossible sometimes.:)