National News Gary Lineker intervenes

tonyw said:
I'm not calling for an end to the BBC - I'm calling for a switch to the funding model whereby people sign up to pay for it by choice, rather than have it forced upon them by taxation. And allow them to raise some additional money via advertising, if they so choose.

iPlayer's interface is decent, but (at least for the version in the US) it's almost completely lacking old content. Just tried searching on a few old classics, and I can't watch Fawlty Towers on it or Monty Python or classic mini-series like Alec Guiness' Smiley or Edge of Darkness or State of Play. And the only Blackadder I can watch is the one they commission for the Millenium Dome.

Why is that? The reason that Netflix got such a foothold was partly because people loved their new shows but also because they got all the streaming rights to old 'comfort TV' (particularly for Americans) like Friends, Frasier or The Office, and all the Disney back catalog. Losing all that to their competitors is a big reason why they've started haemorrhaging subscribers post-pandemic.

Get all that old classic BBC content in one place, add all the new quality content that they're producing, and you've got the best streaming service available anywhere, period.
And if you can't sell enough subscriptions to that at home and worldwide to make it a sustainable entity (when coupled with advertising revenue)......then firstly, I don't think you're much good at running an entertainment business, but secondly I don't see a real justification for taxing everyone in the country to enforce its continued existence.
Click to expand...
From memory it is an OfCOM regulation that until November 2022 only allowed BBC to have new programmes broadcast in the last 12 months on iPlayer (before 2019 it was even more tightly regulated). This was apparently to prevent unfair competition with commercial streaming services. They launched the commercial Britbox service to get around this. Britbox wasn't successful, and BBC sold their share to ITV removing most of their content. Although there will be more classic content allowed on iPlayer, it won't be allowed to put all up there.
 
Jolteon said:
Given the BBC's stance on political comments from Gary in the past, they really don't have any leg to stand on:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634489134692663296

What changed is that the BBC now has several Tory affiliates in high ranking positions and this is a direct attack on the Government.

The Government are now using it as an opportunity to create division and make it an "us v them" scenario. It's been such a blatant gaslighting tactic since the Brexit referendum and yet people STILL refuse to see it.
Click to expand...
www.facebook.com

#GaryLineker #BBC #Football #ConservativeParty | Peter A Tully | Peter A Tully · Původní zvuk

1,3 mil. zhlédnutí, 8,7 tis. To se mi líbí, 1 komentářů, 9,7 tis. sdílení, Facebook Reels od Peter A Tully: #GaryLineker #BBC #Football #ConservativeParty. Peter A Tully · Původní zvuk
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
OUFCGav said:
From memory it is an OfCOM regulation that until November 2022 only allowed BBC to have new programmes broadcast in the last 12 months on iPlayer (before 2019 it was even more tightly regulated). This was apparently to prevent unfair competition with commercial streaming services. They launched the commercial Britbox service to get around this. Britbox wasn't successful, and BBC sold their share to ITV removing most of their content. Although there will be more classic content allowed on iPlayer, it won't be allowed to put all up there.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, thanks. So the BBC have been stopped by OfCom from making iPlayer as good as it could be - because to do so would completely screw their streaming competition as their complete back catalog would blow everyone else's out of the water.

Obviously, in my imagined future BBC scenario, where the Beeb was no longer government funded and instead had to be self-sustaining, the argument for any artificial OfCom restrictions would go away as there would no longer be any ongoing unfair competitive advantage.
 
tonyw said:
That's interesting, thanks. So the BBC have been stopped by OfCom from making iPlayer as good as it could be - because to do so would completely screw their streaming competition as their complete back catalog would blow everyone else's out of the water.

Obviously, in my imagined future BBC scenario, where the Beeb was no longer government funded and instead had to be self-sustaining, the argument for any artificial OfCom restrictions would go away as there would no longer be any ongoing unfair competitive advantage.
Click to expand...
Yes, but would then be like any other £8/month subs service and wouldn't have the financial muscle to compete. Britbox was a failure on the same principle. Compare to Disney who are expected to up their Disney+ content budget to $15billion for 2022-2024 period.
 
Essexyellows said:
Whilst I am vehemently opposed to the way the current licence fee is implemented on us, the British Broadcasting Corporation produces a lot of good & important programming.

The "do you watch live telly" is a model that is dying rapidly. A lot of people now watch what they want, when they want via the web, iPlayer, Netflix, etc etc.

How that is "licenced" whilst retaining a National broadcaster is a tricky one.
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand why people complain about paying the licence fee, only to pay for other subscriptions instead?

Is there really any difference?

I still watch scheduled tv, so I maybe displaying epic ignorance on this.
 
Oslernorth said:
I don’t really understand why people complain about paying the licence fee, only to pay for other subscriptions instead?

Is there really any difference?

I still watch scheduled tv, so I maybe displaying epic ignorance on this.
Click to expand...

People are not choosing to pay for the BBC, they are choosing to pay for subscription services.
 
holdsteady said:
People are not choosing to pay for the BBC, they are choosing to pay for subscription services.
Click to expand...
So it’s more a point of principle than a criticism of BBC content?

Was the law around the licence fee changed recently? I don’t think you need a licence if you don’t watch BBC content?

Please nobody take my word on this without checking first.
 
The BBC is dying in its current funding format. For nostalgic reasons I will be sad to see it go, but it’s inevitable in the current market place of subscription TV.

As the baby boomer generation dies, so will the BBC. Loyalty and nostalgia from the boomers are currently helping the BBC retain it’s funding but even some of the Boomers are startling to turn, as they rightly or wrongly feel more detached and alienated from some of the editorial content, not unlike the National Trust in some ways.

The BBC is dying in its current funding format, but is also being hastened by the alienation of its core audience.

What would you actually pay to watch or listen to from the BBC if you had a choice today? Compare that to a time before satellite TV.

I have some sympathy for those that say ‘be careful what you wish for’, I get that, and feel that way too to a degree.

However in time the BBC will inevitably have to change and evolve in the way it’s funded, and when that time comes I will mourn what the BBC used to be, not what it is today and the direction it is heading in.
 
Last edited:
Oslernorth said:
So it’s more a point of principle than a criticism of BBC content?

Was the law around the licence fee changed recently? I don’t think you need a licence if you don’t watch BBC content?

Please nobody take my word on this without checking first.
Click to expand...
"Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on any online TV service. It’s not just live events like sport, news and music. It covers all programmes on any channel, including soaps, series, documentaries and even movies.

If you’re watching live TV, you need to be covered by a TV Licence:

- if you’re watching on TV or on an online TV service
- for all channels, not just the BBC
- if you record a programme and watch it later
- if you watch a programme on a delay
- to watch or record repeats
- to watch or record programmes on +1, +2 and +24 channels
- to watch live programmes on Red Button services
- even if you already pay for cable, satellite or other TV services

... you need a TV Licence to watch any TV channels live (broadcast or online), even if these are from outside the UK. This applies no matter what device you’re using".

 
Oslernorth said:
So it’s more a point of principle than a criticism of BBC content?

Was the law around the licence fee changed recently? I don’t think you need a licence if you don’t watch BBC content?

Please nobody take my word on this without checking first.
Click to expand...

Mike's link covers the last two sentences (but yes, even if you only ever watch tennis all day every day on Amazon Prime - like my Aunt - you still need a TV license)

But to respond to the first - yes, absolutely. The BBC still makes some great stuff.
But the notion that everyone has to pay for it to keep it going is just archaic. It's beyond time that the BBC was made to stand on its own two feet and justify its existence by having to attract subscribers and survive in the marketplace.

OUFCGav said:
Yes, but would then be like any other £8/month subs service and wouldn't have the financial muscle to compete. Britbox was a failure on the same principle. Compare to Disney who are expected to up their Disney+ content budget to $15billion for 2022-2024 period.
Click to expand...

Disney+ is great if you like superheroes, Star Wars or animation. If you want to watch news, sports, comedy, contemporary drama, soaps, documentaries, reality TV, home improvement or frickin' Gardeners World, it's not got much to offer. I would expect a proper BBC streaming service - which included all their back catalog, and all their current programming - would wipe the floor with it. Although I also suspect a lot of families would sign up for both.
 
The BBC is for old people, they would still pay for it and the programmes they like cost about a fiver to make so it will be fine. It would just stop it wasting everyone’s money attempting to make tv shows for young people that no one watches.

Short of Armageddon you will never run out of old people, so the BBC will be fine, it just probably won’t be able to cover Glastonbury with 6,000 people doing not much but there for a free weekend.
 
holdsteady said:
The BBC is for old people, they would still pay for it and the programmes they like cost about a fiver to make so it will be fine. It would just stop it wasting everyone’s money attempting to make tv shows for young people that no one watches.

Short of Armageddon you will never run out of old people, so the BBC will be fine, it just probably won’t be able to cover Glastonbury with 6,000 people doing not much but there for a free weekend.
Click to expand...

Is it only old people who listen to Oxford United commentary on Rad Ox?
 
Marked Ox said:
Is it only old people who listen to Oxford United commentary on Rad Ox?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm no spring chicken anymore. And I like the Beeb.
The Netherlands also had a system whereby every household paid for the national senders. But they stopped that and allowed the 3 national channels to use advertising as their revenue source. Seems to be working as the programmes are getting beter.
And those senders have less advertising minutes than the commercial channels.
 
Marked Ox said:
Is it only old people who listen to Oxford United commentary on Rad Ox?
Click to expand...

I mean I have absolutely no data to back this up - but it probably is, isn't it?

I would have thought most young people are either at the game, or they've got something else on or they're too far away, in which case they're likely streaming through iFollow anyways?

Again - no proof, but I find it hard to imagine the yoof of today huddled round their radios listening to the game in massive numbers!?!
 
tonyw said:
I mean I have absolutely no data to back this up - but it probably is, isn't it?

I would have thought most young people are either at the game, or they've got something else on or they're too far away, in which case they're likely streaming through iFollow anyways?

Again - no proof, but I find it hard to imagine the yoof of today huddled round their radios listening to the game in massive numbers!?!
Click to expand...

It is easy enough to have on in the background so don't really need to be huddled around a radio and 'old' needs to be defined.
 
tonyw said:
Mike's link covers the last two sentences (but yes, even if you only ever watch tennis all day every day on Amazon Prime - like my Aunt - you still need a TV license)

But to respond to the first - yes, absolutely. The BBC still makes some great stuff.
But the notion that everyone has to pay for it to keep it going is just archaic. It's beyond time that the BBC was made to stand on its own two feet and justify its existence by having to attract subscribers and survive in the marketplace.



Disney+ is great if you like superheroes, Star Wars or animation. If you want to watch news, sports, comedy, contemporary drama, soaps, documentaries, reality TV, home improvement or frickin' Gardeners World, it's not got much to offer. I would expect a proper BBC streaming service - which included all their back catalog, and all their current programming - would wipe the floor with it. Although I also suspect a lot of families would sign up for both.
Click to expand...
The thing is, it wouldn't exist, and those programmes wouldn't get made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom