Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
As Andrew said - you’re operating on assumptions. One of these is that ‘public service’ and ‘entertainment’ are somehow mutually exclusive concepts. They aren’t. “Educate, inform and entertain” *are* the BBC’s public service remit, and have been since 1922.
|
Maybe so. But the Charter can be changed.
Now that was easy....
---------- Post added at 08:04 ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inactive Digital
Part govt funding and part subscription sounds like a logical compromise but the devil would be in the detail.
No other major UK broadcaster (or any at all, perhaps?) operates a subscription-only model. So would BBC 'entertainment' be allowed to sell advertising slots? I suspect ITV, Sky, Channel 4 etc would argue that it could have a devestating impact on their businesses.
Of course, there's the argument that we're in the streaming world now, so the BBC should be like Netflix, which costs subscribers significantly less per month than the TV licence. But every subscriber has had their bill effectively subsidised by Netflix's $15 billion debt. Will the government be happy to have billions of debt on its balance sheet in order for a subscription BBC to compete? Given the govt wants to sell Channel 4 because it *might* one day lead to a liability on the govt balance sheet, I suspect not.
Of course there's also the question of how Freeview and Freesat homes - many of which have equipment that's incapable of decrypting broadcasts - would access pay BBC - think about the elderly etc.
I can't see how Andrew Neill's suggestion would work in practice. I suspect the BBC will ultimately end up doing a lot less and be limited to whatever funding the govt decides upon for PSB news, radio etc. Any entertainment offering will be sold off (anyone for EastEnders at 7pm on ITV?  ) |
You say that no other major UK broadcaster operates a subscription only model, but effectively the BBC operates on the compulsory subscription model called the licence fee. What I am suggesting is that the PSB requirement should be more narrowly defined so that programmes such as dramas and entertainment shows are excluded. The commercial sector is well able to produce good quality drama as the global streamers have already demonstrated. The 'socially necessary' PSB content should be hived off to a government funded channel and the rest could be by subscription.
I accept that payment by subscription is not feasible at the moment as broadband rollout has not been completed, but I would draw your attention to Ofcom's report 'Broadcasting in the Digital Age', which states:
'
Our analysis shows that the DTT platform will remain uncontested for free-to-air TV for
at least the next ten years. While most broadcasters expect in the long term to migrate
fully to the internet, that is not feasible today. Broadband networks are not yet of
sufficient quality to support universal HD streaming and more than 40 per cent of TV sets
cannot yet connect to broadband. So, for broadcasters and viewers alike, DTT will remain
important for some time. Our earlier work had suggested that there would be strong
competition from mobile companies for the valuable airwaves, or spectrum, that underpin
DTT. But mobile demand has substantially diminished as investments in 5G require
spectrum at higher frequencies.'
The Netflix debt that you refer to is due mainly to the incredible investment they have made in creating original material. However, the BBC already has a huge library of programmes to draw on and so does not need that level of investment.
There is no reason why the BBC cannot be split in the way I have suggested. Britbox is already funded by advertising, as is the new ITVX service due to be launched later this year.
The changes are already falling into place right here, right now, but some still cannot see it. They don't want to see it.