Item — HN Reader

Brit here wondering how this shift within the industry will affect the BBC. We own a screen, Netflix subscription and Chromecast, and do not pay for a TV License. While this setup is not even remotely commonplace yet, it could be a real threat over the next decade, especially as iPlayer usage is free without owning a License.

I would like to see the TV License flipped on its head: you pay a subscription that gets you access to everything the BBC offers, except what they broadcast live (and maybe online news), which you get for free (the exact opposite of how they charge now).

A much better proposal for the streaming generation, essentially a tax-cut for the older generation, and none of the nasty TV License policing issues.

8 comments

The BBC's big threat just now is probably not the Internet, but the current Government. It's already lost £.75bn of its budget, and some conservatives would like to ban the BBC from producing popular content.

>some conservatives would like to ban the BBC from producing popular content.

Friends of Rupert Murdoch.

I really don't know how to parse that last sentence. What is the logic (or lack thereof) there? I don't keep up with what the BBC gets done to it by the UK government.

No real logic. All politics. The BBC is publicly funded and an enormous success, which is an embarrassment to those singing from the free market hymn sheet. But also, it's obviously a direct competitor to other media companies in the UK, who are very politically powerful (Murdoch, for example).

Same goes for our national health service, which is currently being gutted for the same reasons.

The Government have made the BBC cover the cost of free TV licenses, which means their budget for actual content is now £750m smaller. And there has been the suggestion that the BBC be banned from making entertainment programmes like The Voice, which would ensure the company is less popular with the public and less likely to garner sympathy in future.

"There has been the suggestion".. by whom?

See:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/29/bbc-the-voice-i...

Kind of a moot point now seeing as the BBC were outbid for the next series:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34756063

Popular in this context means programmes created for pure entertainment, i.e. not news / current affairs / documentary / educational / etc. It doesn't mean that the BBC wouldn't be able to produce programmes that draw in an audience.

The BBC is the only widely-consumed source of serious political journalism in the UK that is not controlled by a plutocrat. Naturally, the Conservatives want to destroy it.

Not that the last Labour government were very keen on it!

Basically it's a principle argument around the role of government companies. Should government companies compete directly with local private companies in non-essential sectors? There are already lots of british companies producing popular entertainment shows, why should they have to compete against the government that is also supposed to support them. How would you feel if your taxes went to finance your direct competitor?

Furthermore it creates a potential conflict of interest. Do you pass a law that benefits 'your' company over private companies? What about passing a law levels the playing field in a sector but will take profits away from the government?

I know this is the standard argument against state participation in the economy, but in the particular case of the BBC, i have never heard this argument seriously presented.

I think BBC (and it's siblings in other countries) will do well.

They aren't burdened by paywalls or quarter-capitalism. As long as they do a good job (ensuring that the public want them funded) I think they'll be around.

In Sweden, SVT (public service channels) have done a good job providing all content online, on Apple TV, etc. It feels like they have a modern mindset.

I'd expect it's easier for BBC, since English content is probably easier to sell around due to the larger number of English speaking countries. Quite a many audiences aren't comfortable with subtitles, so dubbing is suddenly required for content originating from smaller language areas.

Feb 2015 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659

"The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years, a group of MPs has said."

"The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead."

Yeah. So if enough people decide they don't need or want the BBC so they're not paying for it, it will hit a threshold where they just start charging everyone.

Maybe this is just a cultural thing, but is that not messed up? It seems wrong, or at least very wasteful, to force people to pay for state-produced entertainment. Even the current TV licensing scheme is bad, because it assumes you watch BBC content if you have a TV.

It might be a cultural thing - I grew up in Canada where there's a similar setup for the CBC and I largely think it's fine.

One of the important things to note is that the US absolutely dominates world media, from TV to movies to music to everything else. For countries that are linguistically compatible (UK, Canada, Australia, etc) this is extra-true. You get into a weird situation where the bulk of the entertainment being consumed by the populace is foreign-made, and there's increasingly less room for expressions of local culture.

The funding of the CBC in Canada for example is less about making you watch the CBC but more about state funding to create local arts and culture in an environment where foreign culture dominates. It's about making sure "Canadian TV" and "Canadian music" even exists (sorry about the Bieber).

I can't speak for the BBC, but it's also important to note that unlike public broadcasters of the US like PBS, the CBC is not a giant money pit. It creates programs that are highly successful, generate revenue, and have viewership competitive with major American programs. The CBC is a mainstream cultural institution in a way that the PBS can only hope to be, so it's not as if taxpayer money is being spent to create shows nobody watches.

> It seems wrong, or at least very wasteful, to force people to pay for state-produced entertainment.

The entertainment isn't produced by the state though. The BBC is owned and funded by the British public, not the state. The government isn't directly involved in the BBC, although "BBC Trustees are appointed by the British monarch on advice of government ministers"[0]. Other European countries have similar models.

Besides, and I understand that this is a contentious issue, I think that there are certain services that all members of a society should pay for, even if not everybody uses them. My taxes pay for roads even though I don't own a car. Bear in mind that the BBC also produces news and a lot of other content, all without ads and independent of commercial interests.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Governance_and_Corporate_S...

The majority of the public like the content the BBC produces. They don't think any further than that.

Yes, it is messed up.

The BBC has other sources of income too. Here in Australia, there is a ton of BBC content on Netflix Australia, which presumably Netflix paid the BBC for (eg River, for which Netflix acquired exclusive international streaming rights: http://deadline.com/2015/10/netflix-bbc-river-stellan-skarsg... )

In Australia, our ABC is funded directly out of general taxes, rather than an explicit TV License. I can imagine Britain eventually moving to a similar model to fund the BBC.

> River is represented by Endemol Shine International, the sales and distribution arm of Endemol Shine Group.

While the BBC may have broadcast River, Endemol Shine Group has the distribution rights, which is who Netflix would have paid.

I don't know all the details, but unless River was a wholly internal BBC production, I'd suggest Endemol probably contributed to the production budget in return for the distribution rights.

This happens with a lot of BBC programmes. The majority of the rights reside with BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned commercial subsidiary of the BBC. BBC Worldwide bids on distribution rights like any other TV sales and distribution company. Any profits from BBC Worldwide's activities are invested back in the public BBC, thus reducing licence fee rises to some extent.

However, other companies like Endemol and All3Media also produce programmes broadcast on various BBC channels or work with independent production companies to fund productions, in return for distribution rights, regardless of where it is broadcast domestically.

BBC Worldwide has also been investing in independent production companies in order to increase their distribution catalogue.

Disclosure: I worked for BBC Worldwide for 9 years and then ran my own post-production company for a few more years.

BBC income last year... From the license fee, £3.7B GBP; from commercial activities, £1.0B GBP. Details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/repo...

The BBC is in a difficult bind. It can't charge for license-fee funded content in the UK where it's best known. And if it had to make all its income from its commercial arm, it would only make Doctor Who and Top Gear, none of the classical music, news, or drama that it's best at.

How the BBC is funded is intensely political, being argued a ton right now as the charter is up for renewal in 2016. The BBC in 2017 could be much smaller.

Top Gear will not be earning them much anymore - Clarkson, Hammond and May have left. They went to Amazon, to produce an original auto tv show there.

from here: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/panic-at-the-bbc-as-...

"Maintaining an international foothold is vital for Top Gear, which is the BBC’s biggest global brand with sales of the TV show, DVDs, books, live shows and other merchandise worth more than £50 million ($101 million) a year. BBC sources fear Evans is a complete unknown outside the UK. Top Gear’s former three stooges are settling in well at Amazon."

"Clarkson, Hammond and May may no longer be on Top Gear, but they are still vying for the same viewers. While Top Gear’s schemes play out in public, they are busy preparing their new rival big-budget show for Amazon — and crowing about how little interference they get from their latest masters. Along with the lack of outside pressure, the team also has cash, and lots of it, with a budget reported to be at £4 million ($8.1 million) an episode — ten times that of Top Gear’s."

So the BBC will be losing all that Top Gear money too.

> Top Gear will not be earning them much anymore - Clarkson, Hammond and May have left.

And by "left", you mean that Clarkson got canned for punching out a guy because he didn't like his catered dinner, after being warned repeatedly for starting fights and making racist remarks on camera.

The BBC will get to charge a license or subscription fee for non live, it is an accident of history and will change within a couple of years (along with charging for access to iplayer from abroad).

I like this suggestion. I'm of course very much in favour of streaming as the primary mode of watching TV, but I'm very invested in seeing the BBC survive in a recognisable form into the future. Despite its considerable watering down of its original mission statement, the BBC still remains my best answer to the hypothetical "What's the best thing about being British?"

I suspect the UK will do what Germany does, and charge all households a tax, regardless if you have have TV.

I thought you had to pay the tax for any screen, regardless of where the content comes from?

Only if the content is "live TV" or you record live TV, which Netflix doesn't fall under.

Source: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one which I assume would have the broadest possible definition

Only if you're going to watch live TV on it. Doesn't matter where it comes from (iPlayer live or a bit of wire on top of your house).

From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&bl...:

"1.3 Note also that “received” means receiving a TV programme as it is being broadcast on TV. It does not include receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."

On-demand elements of iPlayer don't need a license, watching live channels on iPlayer does however. Also the case with non-BBC servies such as ITV Player, 4OD, etc.

Yeah, that was my read of it as well, although honestly that distinction seems like it'd be an enforcement nightmare. Just figured a link to the official policy would be useful to someone.

To be very specific you need a TV licence if you consume a "broadcast signal".

Meaning that anything that is live, or recorded from a live signal, requires a TV licence - whether or not it came from an over-the-air signal or via an IP service.

But if you consume a catch-up TV service, or watch DVDs, or use Netflix... then you do not need a TV licence.

Aside from the person I know who works at the BBC, no-one I know now has a TV licence, just as no-one I know has a land-line telephone. Modern technology (smart TVs and smart DVD players mostly) have obliterated old style viewing.

Only if the screen has a tuner and aerial I think; a monitor wouldn't require one.

No, you're wrong. A person using a laptop to view live tv on eg BBC iPlayer would need to be covered by a licence.

The licence is needed for any "live broadcast tv". The equipment used is not relevant; and the source of the signal is not relevant. So someone in England watching French satellite TV still needs a licence.

This used to be the case. It changed very recently to requiring a license for all live TV, regardless of how it's received.