Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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broadcaster, free to choose how it raises revenue, and its public service obligation is reduced but not entirely withdrawn, then they could pursue the strategy you’ve outlined. I’d have thought it very unlikely that the public service obligation would be withdrawn from BBC1 and 2.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scenario where the BBC’s more niche stuff could be paywalled (and the public service obligation on those channels were withdrawn then they would be free to do that), the example of ITV suggests they wouldn’t. Also consider that all of the BBC’s output is geared towards mass audiences.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"]
|
I agree with your description of the present situation.
Where we disagree is that you have a presumption that this situation will remain as it is. You will be aware from my previous post that a review is to be conducted on the future of public service broadcasting, and whether we actually need this at all in this day and age. This is what you seem to be failing to address.
You rightly refer to the charter, but this could be terminated, either when it is up for renewal, or at an earlier date if the government so decides.
If it is decided to continue with the public service obligation, there are a number of points I should make.
Firstly, there is no guarantee that this obligation will remain with the BBC at all, particularly in view of the current government’s antipathy towards the Corporation.
Secondly, whether or not the government will look more favourably on the Beeb, the government could set out revised public service broadcasting requirements, financed by the government, for which the various eligible channels could bid.
Third, I get what you said about accessibility. However, if BBC services were available on demand with perhaps some additional premium and archive material and
a separate free streaming service funded by commercials was provided, that would overcome the accessibility problem.
The government is still banging on about a subscription model, so I wouldn’t discount that too lightly. Bear in mind that a growing number of people happen to agree with that as well.