Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36055497)

As things stand, it’s far better value than the TV licence though.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36055499)

A massive global news operation, six national radio stations, 40 stations serving the regions and nations, 8 national tv channels with a legal obligation to serve the broadest possible range of interests, and the ability to produce some of the most watched content on British TV, live, in house, week after week for months at a time* ... I’m sorry but you’re talking out of your hat. I’m a big Netflix fan and I watch a lot of it, but it doesn’t come close to the depth and breadth of service funded by the tv licence. As per, you’re projecting your own particular needs and tastes onto the population at large. Just because it works for OLD BOY, it doesn’t mean it works for everyone.

*Strictly Come Dancing, in case you were wondering

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36057254)

If you are talking about the BBC, simply abolish the licence fee.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057257)

So that then leaves them in the same position as ITV - with a lot of very valuable screen time to sell to advertisers.

Again, I ask: how do you compel them to adopt a subscription model, which is what you have repeatedly suggested they should do?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057257)

So that then leaves them in the same position as ITV - with a lot of very valuable screen time to sell to advertisers.

Again, I ask: how do you compel them to adopt a subscription model, which is what you have repeatedly suggested they should do?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36057263)

I assume that what you are asking in an oblique fashion is why would they not decide to offer commercial TV with advertisements?

Well, of course they could do, but the Beeb have an aversion to advertising, don’t they (unless it’s to advertise their own programmes and services)? To my mind, they should offer both.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36057262)

And the commercial broadcasters don't want the BBC to carry advertising as it would suck a lot of ad revenue from them.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057265)

The BBC is forbidden by the terms of its charter to advertise anything on any of its public service channels. It has no aversion; it simply acts within the law.

It advertises exactly the same as anyone else where it operates commercially - as you can see if you tune in to Alibi, Dave, Drama, Eden, Gold, Yesterday or W. All of these are operated by UKTV, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Studios.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36057266)

Yes, well the commercial broadcasters like to call the shots. They can’t have it all their own way. They don’t want the BBC to have the advantage of the guaranteed income from the licence fee but if that stops and they go commercial, they don’t want that either.

Cake and eat it?

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------



If the licence fee is abolished, then they will have to amend the charter, won’t they? Why is that so insurmountable?

If that’s what you think, I’m not sure what you were getting at in your last post.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057270)

You're getting things backwards.

The BBC's Royal Charter is what enables the licence fee. You can't abolish the fee and then amend the charter to reflect that. You amend or abolish the charter, in order to abolish the fee.

In fact, the primary purpose of the charter is to enable the licence fee system. Otherwise the BBC could simply operate under exactly the same regulatory framework that governs ITV etc. So in practice if you intended to abolish the licence fee the royal charter would probably go at the same time.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36057304)

I am sure you are right. So they amend the charter and abolish the licence fee. It is not an insurmountable problem. To wit, you have resolved it yourself.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057270)

The bigger question in terms of subscriptions is the BBC's public service obligations. ITV also has a PSO (as do channel 4 and 5); you don't have to have a charter to be a public service broadcaster, but you do have to commit to certain levels of availability, which going behind a paywall is not compatible with.

So by proposing a subscription you're also proposing the BBC stops being a public service broadcaster. For an organisation whose entire business is geared towards universal public service broadcasting the very idea is absurd. In fact the only reason 'force it to charge a subscription!' is ever advanced as an argument is because people see the licence fee and draw a shallow and false equivalence between it, and subscription. In the context of universal public service broadcasting the idea simply isn't compatible at all.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36057312)

Public service obligations! Any terrestrial channel can take on such responsibilities, and would be willing to do so if the cash went with it.

The BBC could go behind a paywall for those who wanted a premium choice and were prepared to pay for it, but also offer a free service for those who did not want that.

Other than regional news programmes and religious programmes (both currently offered by ITV), I am not entirely sure what these public services obligations obligations are. Would you miss them (if you do know what they are)? I’m sure that such programmes are available from other content providers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36057312)

Public service obligations! Any terrestrial channel can take on such responsibilities, and would be willing to do so if the cash went with it.

The BBC could go behind a paywall for those who wanted a premium choice and were prepared to pay for it, but also offer a free service for those who did not want that.

Other than regional news programmes and religious programmes (both currently offered by ITV), I am not entirely sure what these public services obligations obligations are. Would you miss them (if you do know what they are)? I’m sure that such programmes are available from other content providers.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057323)

So, this is the point in the argument where you profess to know nought of such things, and therefore their importance is suspect.

There’s clearly little point in trying to discuss this with you - the entire British tv broadcasting system is based on the concept of public service broadcasting. It affects everything done by all the BBC’s TV channels, as well as the channel 3 broadcaster (ITV1, STV etc), Channel 4, S4C and Five, and all broadcast platforms whether or not they are owned by the public service broadcasters.

It is so fundamental to the discussion you’re trying to take part in, that if you really are “not entirely sure”, nothing you say can possibly carry any weight. This is laughable. And no, I’m not going to prove I do know by answering your thinly-veiled attempt to get me to do your homework for you.

Opinions are like erseholes, OB. Everybody has one but sometimes they’re full of *. On the off-chance that you’re interested in making an interesting contribution to a discussion rather than fancying yourself as an armchair expert, you could start your research with the very basic information here:

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+i...United+Kingdom

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36057319)

l would not say ITV news programmes are very regional as such given its 120 plus miles away from where we live wherever BBC South West regional HQ is just down the road..

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36057354)

Lack of adverts is the only thing that stands out to me. Apart from the wokeness, which I could well do without.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057359)

If you’re in a hole, stop digging. Right now you’re simply hanging your ignorance out on the washing line for all to see. No, I’m not going to do this for you. The public service remit is a thing (has always been a thing in the U.K.), its impact on British tv broadcasting is profound, but as it’s something you know nothing about (and you clearly hate the fact that you know nothing about it) if you expect your little opinions to be taken seriously you’re going to have to swallow your pride and do your research.

Except of course that it might just be beyond you to do that ... it would certainly explain why you’re so quick to start bleating “whatever” and “woke” whenever you’re challenged with new information.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057391)

You're still trying to get me to do your homework for you. I'm not biting. I'm comfortable that nobody else reading this is likely to conclude that I don't understand what public service broadcasting is. I'm also pretty sure you don't want to read about it yourself because you suspect it drives a coach and horses through (what passes for) your argument about the BBC's future funding - and that people reading this reckon that's the case as well.

If you prefer to remain in ignorance, that's your prerogative.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36057358)

Old Boy out to decapitate the UK TV industry as he clutches at his 2025/35 prediction. It’s only telly...

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057252)

How would you compel a private company to operate a subscription model?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36057421)

If you cut-off their funding (license fee) they would have to become a subscription based channel or accept adverts.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057423)

Precisely - they have the choice. Either adverts, or subscription, or both.

So the question remains: how do you force them to start taking subscriptions? (Answer .... you can’t).

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36057421)

If you cut-off their funding (license fee) they would have to become a subscription based channel or accept adverts.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057423)

Precisely - they have the choice. Either adverts, or subscription, or both.

So the question remains: how do you force them to start taking subscriptions? (Answer .... you can’t).

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36057439)

With more and more people allegedly cancelling their tv licence i think a time will come where BBC will go comercial, not sure about subscription though, maybe bbc1 and 2, news will be comercial with bbc 3,4, cbbc and cbeebies going subscription?
Thatr's only guesswork though.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057489)

Accepting for the sake of argument that the BBC’s Royal Charter is not renewed in 2032, the organisation becomes a commercial broadcaster, free to choose how it raises revenue, and its public service obligation is reduced but not entirely withdrawn, then they could pursue the strategy you’ve outlined. I’d have thought it very unlikely that the public service obligation would be withdrawn from BBC1 and 2. That being the case they would still not be able to put these behind a paywall.

If you look at ITV as the BBC’s nearest analogy on terrestrial TV, only the main channel in epg position 3 is a public service channel that must be free to air. Yet ITV 2, 3 and 4, which are not public service channels, are also FTA. Their HD variants are behind Sky’s paywall on satellite but this has more to do with Sky’s willingness to pay broadcasters to keep HD channels off Freesat than any deliberate strategy to ‘sell’ their channels (Film 4 is paywalled on Sky for the same reason).

So while you could see a scenario where the BBC’s more niche stuff could be paywalled (and the public service obligation on those channels were withdrawn then they would be free to do that), the example of ITV suggests they wouldn’t. Also consider that all of the BBC’s output is geared towards mass audiences. Even the niche stuff on BBC4 is intended for that entire market segment, and not just those within that segment that are prepared to take out a subscription to Sky or VM. At least a third of the potential audience for BBC4 live in homes that don’t already have a pay tv service is significant. If they don’t have Sky already, are they likely to go and get it for BBC4? I’d say it’s unlikely.

Furthermore, at present every one of the BBC’s channels is designed around a public service requirement, and not a commercial one. So despite all of the above, it is unlikely that any of the BBC’s channels would continue in precisely the same form, in a commercial environment and without the public service obligation.

---------- Post added at 08:41 ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 ----------

These posts were split out of the Netflix/streaming services thread. Please continue discussion about the TV licence and the BBC Royal Charter renewal process here.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057489)

Accepting for the sake of argument that the BBC’s Royal Charter is not renewed in 2032, the organisation becomes a commercial broadcaster, free to choose how it raises revenue, and its public service obligation is reduced but not entirely withdrawn, then they could pursue the strategy you’ve outlined. I’d have thought it very unlikely that the public service obligation would be withdrawn from BBC1 and 2. That being the case they would still not be able to put these behind a paywall.

If you look at ITV as the BBC’s nearest analogy on terrestrial TV, only the main channel in epg position 3 is a public service channel that must be free to air. Yet ITV 2, 3 and 4, which are not public service channels, are also FTA. Their HD variants are behind Sky’s paywall on satellite but this has more to do with Sky’s willingness to pay broadcasters to keep HD channels off Freesat than any deliberate strategy to ‘sell’ their channels (Film 4 is paywalled on Sky for the same reason).

So while you could see a scenario where the BBC’s more niche stuff could be paywalled (and the public service obligation on those channels were withdrawn then they would be free to do that), the example of ITV suggests they wouldn’t. Also consider that all of the BBC’s output is geared towards mass audiences. Even the niche stuff on BBC4 is intended for that entire market segment, and not just those within that segment that are prepared to take out a subscription to Sky or VM. At least a third of the potential audience for BBC4 live in homes that don’t already have a pay tv service is significant. If they don’t have Sky already, are they likely to go and get it for BBC4? I’d say it’s unlikely.

Furthermore, at present every one of the BBC’s channels is designed around a public service requirement, and not a commercial one. So despite all of the above, it is unlikely that any of the BBC’s channels would continue in precisely the same form, in a commercial environment and without the public service obligation.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36057526)

I'm not a TV watcher, but obviously catch stuff when 'her indoors' is glued to it.

IMO if the beeb go subscription they'll lose out to those doing it for longer and probably better.

If they go down the adverts route, it will simply become awful programs shoved between 5 adverts every hour . . . and the radio will be the same, 2/3 of a song played after every 10 minutes of chatting.

Oh, and from a mans point of view there is lots of choice viewing on subscription platforms, but with women . . . Ant & Dec, the Soaps, and Celebrity shite are the winners . . so unless the BBC lower their standards they'll never compete :p:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36057529)

They never play Hotel California to the end now:mad:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36057550)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36057559)

Binding, or non-binding?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057513)

I think it's fair to say some Tory MPs are still banging on about a subscription model. The government isn't; in fact, Hugh posted a news report yesterday (Post 19 above) that demonstrates the Culture Secretary is asking 'how much'? with regards to the licence fee, not whether there should be one.

I think Guido Fawkes (who I mentioned yesterday) is also right in his assessment of the advisory panel set up to explore the future of public service broadcasting. There are senior industry figures who have expressed scepticism about the TV licence who could have been coopted onto that panel, but none of them were. It's filled with people who are more likely to assume that future public service broadcasting should continue to enjoy public funding in some way.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36057550)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057998)

If the licence fee is renewed in 2022 (which it will be), what are the chances of the licence fee being abolished in 2032? Or at least, how many years notice ahead of 2032 would have tho be given for the BBC to prepare for things to change?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36058035)

I agree. On the Media Show last Wednesday, the Minister for Media (John Whittingdale) said that the BBC could not go subscription/encrypt until Freeview was closed down, which won't be for a long time yet.

It's here if anyone would like to listen to the interview:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p79h

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36058054)

One for Old Boy to dissect as we've got industry leaders in there. I'm not qualified to interpret the thoughts of those types.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36058054)

One for Old Boy to dissect as we've got industry leaders in there. I'm not qualified to interpret the thoughts of those types.