New Package That Requires NO TV Licence

[TimmyBGood]

@rscott 

Not to mention severely curtailing the World Service, which as I've observed before is rather more cost-efficient at projecting the influence of the UK around the world than, say, a couple of unbelievably expensive aircraft carriers crewed by foreign pilots ; )

[LGUser]

---

@rscott wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

@Mark39 wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

.

---

IMHO, BBC has a lot of resources that they don't actually need and can do away with

---

I suspect the BBC knows rather more about their business than you do....

---

As long as BBC is getting our money, they can have as many services as they can afford. What I'd like to know is what would BBC drop if the license fee was dropped.

---

They'd have to focus on the content which attracted the greatest advertising advertising revenue - so BBC4 would be dropped, along with a lot of the less popular, but very interesting content on the other BBC channels. Local radio would either have to accept advertising, or close, which would have a big impact on sections of the community.

Of course, if the BBC started attracting the big name advertisers, especially in shows like Strictly, that would have a negative impact on all the other commercial channels, reducing their revenue and ability to supply content.

BBC R&D would either close or switch to a closed licensing model. So no development of shared technologies like HLG, for example.

---

If we didn't have HLG, Sky would be using HRD10. So that would actually be a plus.

[rscott]

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

What I'd like to know is what would BBC drop if the license fee was dropped.

---

Let's drop the best News coverage on the planet.  That's what Twitter is for, right?

---

I highly disagree that BBC has the best news coverage. BBC can be pretty biased at times. STV has better local news. And Sky is less biased.

---

STV might have better local news for you, but not for the majority of the country.

[Annie+UK]

So the BBC going commercial affect the other channels, that is a good thing as the other channels will be forced to make better programmes to attract the advertisers

IMO this is a win win for the public, it is about time the BBC lost its cash cow as all they do is waste money on things like courses on how to stay hydrated etc... (just drink water)

[rscott]

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

@rscott wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

@Mark39 wrote:

---

@LGUser wrote:

.

---

IMHO, BBC has a lot of resources that they don't actually need and can do away with

---

I suspect the BBC knows rather more about their business than you do....

---

As long as BBC is getting our money, they can have as many services as they can afford. What I'd like to know is what would BBC drop if the license fee was dropped.

---

They'd have to focus on the content which attracted the greatest advertising advertising revenue - so BBC4 would be dropped, along with a lot of the less popular, but very interesting content on the other BBC channels. Local radio would either have to accept advertising, or close, which would have a big impact on sections of the community.

Of course, if the BBC started attracting the big name advertisers, especially in shows like Strictly, that would have a negative impact on all the other commercial channels, reducing their revenue and ability to supply content.

BBC R&D would either close or switch to a closed licensing model. So no development of shared technologies like HLG, for example.

---

If we didn't have HLG, Sky would be using HRD10. So that would actually be a plus.

---

Er, no it wouldn't. HLG is specifically designed for low latency, so is suitable for live content, whereas HDR10 requires more encoding and introduces more lag.

HLG allows a single stream to cater for both HDR and SDR output, but HDR10 would require two separate ones, causing increased costs and complexity.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@LGUser wrote:

---

BBC can be pretty biased at times. STV has better local news. And Sky is less biased.

---

'Biased', or reporting uncomfortable things? 

Incidentally the continued long-term existence of Sky News in its current form after the Comcast takeover is distinctly precarious, because good news coverage just isn't economically viable.

[rscott]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

So the BBC going commercial affect the other channels, that is a good thing as the other channels will be forced to make better programmes to attract the advertisers

IMO this is a win win for the public, it is about time the BBC lost its cash cow as all they do is waste money on things like courses on how to stay hydrated etc... (just drink water)

---

A webinar as part of a staff wellness programme - that's all the water course was. 

I've had similar things offered to me and I work in the commercial sector.  The provider we use offers anything from healthy eating and exercise advice to counselling services. 

Research has shown the that the investment in these is more than recouped with improved staff performance and reduced absences. 

[LGUser]

---

@Annie+UK wrote:

So the BBC going commercial affect the other channels, that is a good thing as the other channels will be forced to make better programmes to attract the advertisers

IMO this is a win win for the public, it is about time the BBC lost its cash cow as all they do is waste money on things like courses on how to stay hydrated etc... (just drink water)

---

Very well said.

[LGUser]

What's the point of BBC broadcasting BBC News on BBC 1 and BBC 2 when there is the BBC News channel? That is a waste of money for sure.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@LGUser wrote:

What's the point of BBC broadcasting BBC News on BBC 1 and BBC 2 when there is the BBC News channel?

---

a) the 'point' is the Public Service remit dating back to the 1926 General Strike when newspaper production was impacted: the BBC was created to provide news.

b) as far as I'm aware the 'main' news segments on BBC1 are the BBC News channel output anyway

No-one's arguing the Beeb isn't a horribly bloated beast: that's a product of its unique history.  The risk is that messing with the funding mechanism kills the bits of that uniqueness which are actually irreplaceable.

[Doc5907]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

@rscott 

Not to mention severely curtailing the World Service, which as I've observed before is rather more cost-efficient at projecting the influence of the UK around the world than, say, a couple of unbelievably expensive aircraft carriers crewed by foreign pilots ; )

---

👍

Oh how I relied on and loved the World Service when I lived in Asia... Something very Britishly reassuring about those hourly pips and 1930/50s style of reading the news. 😊

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Doc5907 wrote:

---

Oh how I relied on and loved the World Service when I lived in Asia... Something very Britishly reassuring about those hourly pips and 1930/50s style of reading the news. 😊

---

And broadcast on a budget that wouldn't keep those US Marine pilots on HMS Queen Elizabeth in doughnuts ; )

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2021/world-service-funding 

[Tomthecatty]

Strange how everyone was up in arms about Russia Today being broadcast in this country but the BBC broadcasting to other countries is accepted as the norm. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Tomthecatty wrote:

 the BBC broadcasting to other countries is accepted as the norm. 

---

Except where access is blocked by the local regimes, of course...

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/russia-restricts-access-bbc-russian-service-radio-lib... 

Anyway it's typically not 'broadcasting' which is the problem (radio, particularly shortwave, doesn't exactly respect borders), it's reception: the World Service won't be listed in most regulated EPGs around the world, and in some places just tuning to it is a crime.  This may be a clue about those countries and their approach to any kind of truth.

[Tomthecatty]

To be fair that's exactly what the UK did to Russia Today. 

To be clear, I'm in no way condoning Russia's deplorable actions in Ukraine, I'm merely pointing out that the BBC broadcasts around the world are generally accepted whilst other country's broadcasts are only allowed if they fit in with a certain point of view.