BBC is still struggling with the digital switch, says watchdog

The BBC has failed to plan for switching to internet-based media and move away from traditional broadcasting at a “more wholesale, strategic level,” according to a public spending watchdog. The UK's National Audit Office said the boss of the hundred-year-old broadcaster had set out a vision for where it should aim to be by the …

[Timbo]

Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

When the UK started the switch to digital TV, in November 1998, the BBC FAILED to recognise the fact that they could then have implemented a subscriber based service (instead of a paper TV licence) for the required external Digital TV receivers, using a "conditional access module".

And then with the growth of the internet and the higher download speeds available with "fibre to the street", they have FAILED yet again to take on the likes of Netflix/Amazon Prime etc by offering an online "subscription based" streaming service for all their TV channels, as they continue to "push" their outdated "iPlayer" and "Sounds" apps...

I know the BBC are highly fearful of their income from TV licence money reducing significantly (as more consumers use other sources of entertainment and do not renew their TV licences) and they still employ 3rd parties (at vast expense) to visit consumers homes in order to "police" and take to court any "TV licence evaders" - and yet this could so easily have been avoided years ago with a basic subscription service.

And they still pay Sky to broadcast their TV channels for FREE when they could easily make a standard charge of say £5-10 per month.

[MJI]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

No CAM in specification was deliberate.

[MJI]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

Are BBC paying Sky? They are already on Astra 2.

I do use Freesat to watch BBC HD, not touching a Murdoch box.

[Old Tom]

"not touching a Murdoch box"

Sky was taken over by Comcast in 2018, it isn't Murdoch any more.

[MJI]

Re: "not touching a Murdoch box"

Still too expensive though.

[chivo243]

Re: "not touching a Murdoch box"

not much has changed...

[DJO]

Re: "not touching a Murdoch box"

As hard as it may be to believe, Comcast are even worse.

[WolfFan]

Re: "not touching a Murdoch box"

Yes, they are. They used to be rated the second worst cable company in America. Then they bought the cableco which was rated the worst. Seriously. They are all alone at the bottom. They are so bad that they make AT&T look good. Hell, they come close to making Verizon look good.

[Arthur the cat]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

they still employ 3rd parties (at vast expense) to visit consumers homes in order to "police" and take to court any "TV licence evaders"

Really? As I've mentioned before, database fuckups meant I'd get endlessly castigated for not having a licence while also having an automatically renewed licence for over a decade and not once did anybody actually turn up on my doorstep and ask to see my licence.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

My father moved into a care home. His (empty) house still got regular letters from TV Licencing:

• You need a licence.
• This is a red letter, get a licence.
• Our teams are operating in your area, you require a licence to watch TV.
• We are going to start an investigation.
• We have started an investigation.

Then my father died and I sold the house, so I don't know what comes next. But it certainly doesn't involve anyone actually turning up. It was obvious to anyone that the house was empty. But you have to stand at the front door to know that.

I no longer watch the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation, now I see how biased they are. So I refuse to buy a licence. Just remember, if you don't watch broadcast TV, or use iPlayer (they changed the rules, cunts) you legally don't need TV licence.

[werdsmith]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

Student accommodation gets bombarded with licence letters too. They just don't bother even picking them up from the communal mailbox stack and they pile up for months.

[Arthur the cat]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

Then my father died and I sold the house, so I don't know what comes next.

The whole thing repeats next year, and next year, and …

[Rob Daglish]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

What comes next is "repeat, ad infinitum" in my experience.

They spent ages going through the process when my Great-Aunt's house was empty, so I thought I'd ring them and let them know the house was empty and they were wasting their time and money chasing an empty house, but it fell on deaf ears and the cycle just continued round and round again.

[Fifth Horseman]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

They *did* used to show up, many years ago.

My last house was a complete strip back and start again refurbishment. One afternoon, an irritatingly self-important individual from "TV License Enforcement", or whatever they called themselves, showed up threatening all kinds of legal mayhem if I didn't cough up. At this point the building is an empty shell, no wiring, plumbing or plaster. The only power a temporary 110v supply for site lighting and tools. "Have a good look round, if you can find a TV, or anywhere to plug one in, for that matter, I'll pay. Otherwise bugger off and let me work!", says I. Jobsworth looks at shoes, looks at amount of dirt, ways up options and grudgingly leaves.

Never seen one of the critters since, mind.

[Arthur the cat]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

They *did* used to show up, many years ago.

Out of interest, exactly how many years ago was this? My threats but no shows were around 2000-2015.

"Have a good look round, if you can find a TV, or anywhere to plug one in, for that matter, I'll pay. Otherwise bugger off and let me work!", says I.

I'd have suggested there might be one in the loft he should check on. "Be careful, ladder's a bit wobbly."

[JimboSmith]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

A mate lives in a block of flats with his girlfriend and has always paid for a licence. In the block there are eight flats and they get the regular amount of junk post. He noticed when sorting through the incoming post that there was a letter addressed to flat nine. He put it to one side and googled the return address when he got back to the flat. He found it amusing that it was TVLicensing and then more arrived over the next few months. He was in on the day that they said on the front of one of the letters someone would call round. Somebody did ring his door phone that day and ask about why there was only eight numbers on the entry phone system. He wouldn’t explain why he was there and apparently not impressed that there were only eight flats.

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: they still pay Sky to broadcast their TV channels for FREE

They don't. They pay Sky to list BBC channels in the Sky EPG.

[JimboSmith]

Re: they still pay Sky to broadcast their TV channels for FREE

If you want to meet people who are grammar fiends and pedantic to the point of driving you mad, meet the EPG team at Sky.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: they still pay Sky to broadcast their TV channels for FREE

From the wiki:

"Any channel which can get carriage on a suitable beam of a satellite at 28° East is entitled to access to Sky's EPG for a fee, ranging from £15–100,000. Third-party channels which opt for encryption receive discounts ranging from reduced price to free EPG entries, free carriage on a Sky leased transponder or actual payment for being carried."

What the BBC pay to "Sky" is not documented :-( Nor is it documented what the BBC pay for their "carriage" to "SES" (the satellite operator) on the Astra satellites.

Also: "BBC Studios" own UKTV 100% since 2019...and no mention of this has been made as to how much is paid for their "carriage" on Astra, or for their inclusion in the Sky EPG.

[werdsmith]

Re: they still pay Sky to broadcast their TV channels for FREE

I watch French TV and it's been very interesting to follow the argument between TNTSAT and canal+ about TF1 distribution. The TF1 channels were removed from the TNTSAT card access (for which a 4 year fee is paid). Now it is available on the free services in the higher numbers.

[JimboSmith]

Re: they still pay Sky to broadcast their TV channels for FREE

I think the BBC are on satellite because they have to be. This is so they can serve people who don’t get a terrestrial signal. I know someone who lives in a valley and can only get TV via satellite. Broadband is still very slow there and a mobile signal is non existent except at a certain height up the valley. To save money they moved to a satellite/transponder with a tighter footprint just covering the UK a few years ago. This meant viewers didn’t have to use a Sky box and the Beeb didn’t need to be encrypted to restrict viewing to the UK. This also meant they didn’t need to pay Sky for encryption and News Corp weren’t happy about that.

https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/newscorp-threatens-bbc-with-lawsuit/en-gb/14572

I also know someone who lives in Spain and has to have a very large dish to get UK television as a result of this change.

[neoaliphant]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

Sky ought to be paying the BBC to broadcast the terrestrial channels, i have quite a few clients who use freesatjust because normal TV aerials dont work. iplayer would be so much better if it had all UK channels, had past content like britbox. so many people cant be bothered with having a seprate account login for each of BBC, itv, channel 4, 5 etc. and the pairing processes can be a nightmare. if UKTV channels as a whole, were on a platform that could eb added to youtubeTV, amazon prime etc, so people can add to watchlists their content, would make it much more user friendly, which I believe they do in US.

[Oglethorpe]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

"the BBC FAILED to recognise the fact that they could then have implemented a subscriber based service (instead of a paper TV licence) for the required external Digital TV receivers, using a "conditional access module"."

I suspect they prefer a scenario where everyone who watches anything live is forced to pay. That way, they're not beholden to the whims of the subscribing public.

[JimboSmith]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

I worked for a commercial broadcaster who didn't like the license fee. However they also didn't want the BBC taking advertising or sponsorship. Neither did the idea of encryption/subscription go down any better. People apparently might find the idea of two monthly charges unwelcoming and ditch the commercial one.

One of my current colleagues had complained recently about the license fee. With the cost of living going up he was worried that the family was paying for both Netflix and now Disney too. As an experiment they made a note of what the family watched over a typical week. After looking at everything he decided that they could do without either Netflix or Disney as those weren’t used as much as freeview. Can’t live without Eastenders, Strictly, Masterchef, Top Gear etc.

[Oglethorpe]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

Thank you for that interesting perspective.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

"I worked for a commercial broadcaster who didn't like the license fee. However they also didn't want the BBC taking advertising or sponsorship. Neither did the idea of encryption/subscription go down any better. People apparently might find the idea of two monthly charges unwelcoming and ditch the commercial one."

So, in summary, the commercial broadcaster didn't like the idea of a big competitor, no matter how it's funded. Sounds like every other commercial business in the world :-)

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

And that at a time when the BBC's brand image was so strong that any advertiser would immediately jump ship to the BBC, and the independents would be left with the equivalent of 'excellent restaurant just round the corner from this cinema'... so the independents found themselves in the interesting position of having to weep and wail about the licence while hoping like mad on the quiet that it would stay.

There's a difference - though it's harder to see these days, since the BBC appears to be stuffed with senior management from the independents - between the BBC and the independents: the BBC is required by statute to provide certain services not necessarily popular to all, to entertain, inform, and educate. The independents exist only to sell soap.

Mind you, as a licence payer for over forty years and a former employee for over thirty, I'd like to be able to keep watching it on occasion even though (particularly though) I no longer live in the UK. But the Luvvie's contract rules about overseas broadcasting knocked that on the head. At least I can still hear Radio 4, but I miss BBC2 and BBC4.

[JimboSmith]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

It wasn’t that they didn’t want a competitor big or small, far from it. They just didn’t want the BBC being a commercial competitor and the licence fee was by far the lesser of two evils. They much preferred the status quo of the license fee to the other alternatives.

[RegGuy1]

Can’t live without Eastenders, Strictly, Masterchef, Top Gear etc

Oh yes you can. (This is not a pantomime.)

Turn the box OFF. Unplug it from the wall. There, that was easy. Now life is SO much better.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

When the UK started the switch to digital TV, in November 1998, the BBC FAILED to recognise the fact that they could then have implemented a subscriber based service (instead of a paper TV licence) for the required external Digital TV receivers, using a "conditional access module".

The license fee is not a subscription to the BBC.

[anonymous boring coward]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

“ The license fee is not a subscription to the BBC.”

But most of it is. No?

£5bn doesn’t come from nowhere.

[gerryg]

Re: Too many "heads in the sand" technophobes run the BBC

No, it's worse than that, you pay the BBC to watch other stuff

[codejunky]

Slow moving

The fear of losing the TV tax is down to having to compete with other providers who have to be entertaining to survive. Hell other providers had to be entertaining enough to earn money and convince people to pay the telly tax.

[MJI]

Re: Slow moving

If the other providers are supposed to be entertaining, how come I find more entertainment on BBC?

[codejunky]

Re: Slow moving

@MJI

"If the other providers are supposed to be entertaining, how come I find more entertainment on BBC?"

Good for you (no sarc). Thats not a bad thing. But the problem is you are the exception not the rule. That isnt to say the BBC doesnt do 'anything' entertaining or good, just not enough to be self sustaining. If it was they would have no fear of losing the TV license money. They would be fine with competition and the other providers would struggle against a competitor instead of fight a monopolistic opponent.

And before anyone jumps on the monopolistic comment, the BBC receives money from the TV license as an advantage over other providers who must be entertaining enough to pay for themselves. And yet with such an unreasonable advantage is losing out to other providers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

When was the last time you saw religious programming on ITV barring Christmas Eve/Day? The BBC still carry it as a Public Service Broadcaster but the ITC decided that under a lighter touch regulation regime ITV (another PSB) didn’t have to. The God slot went years ago on ITV and I can’t see the advertisers flocking to an ITV version of Songs Of Praise. Some of the BBC religious output isn’t bad, I really liked An Island Parish, as an example.

[veti]

Re: Slow moving

Down here (NZ) there are at least three whole channels of free-to-view, broadcast-over-the-air TV devoted solely to religious... "content", I believe is the nice neutral word. None of them government-sponsored, either.

I haven't watched any of them, but I do regularly thumb through them when scanning the programming, so I can vouch they're there and they never. Ever. Shut. Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

'How come I find more entertainment on BBC?'

A list of examples would be helpful. New content, not repeats.

'Strictly come Dancing', I get why the BBC make it, its wide appeal but really it shouldn't be made by BBC, it should be on a commercial channel, it just appeals to the lowest common denominator,

The BBC have missed their chance.

Netflix's "Wednesday" (a reboot of the Addam's Family) is an example of the content the BBC should be making, but isn't, along with 'Stranger things', those two series have cornered the under 25 market. The BBC seems stuck in the recent past, attempting to make 'me too' factual content using influencers from ex 'Made in Chelsea' stars. Cheap TV, but crucially with no longevity, no inherent value.

'Wednesday' will be shown on Netflix to new audiences and new generations for years to come, Netflix understand their market and the investment that is needed in content. They're in it for the long game, as the BBC used to be, before those working for the Beeb, just began exploiting it for their own gain by making cheap, crap TV, to fill the schedules, ignoring the long term consequences of doing that. Allowing a top-heavy management structure to develop.

[MJI]

Re: Slow moving

Strictly is to be honest is a BBC type programme.

Imagine it on ITV with shouty presenters, or a choice of loud boomy music, or wasp in a tin can.

ITV have a rather naff skating show.

No definately a BBC one.

However I do like The Wheel.

I feel the licence is worth it just for the NHU output, and news coverage,

[NewModelArmy]

Re: Slow moving

That skating show was not too bad - here is Todd Carty disappearing off set, to come back on a bit later - 1min 30secs :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gGR28wrKiQ

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Slow moving

Oh FFS, that was shit! Did he not do ANY practice? That looked like he'd never been on the ice before in his life!

[werdsmith]

Re: Slow moving

Oh FFS, that was shit! Did he not do ANY practice? That looked like he'd never been on the ice before in his life!

Staged and deliberate.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Slow moving

"They're in it for the long game, as the BBC used to be, before those working for the Beeb, just began exploiting it for their own gain by making cheap, crap TV, to fill the schedules, ignoring the long term consequences of doing that. Allowing a top-heavy management structure to develop."

For good or ill, mostly ill in the long run it seems, the BBC was forcibly "broken up", spinning off much of it's production into private, commercial operations. That's why so many "BBC" productions don't appear on iPlayer for very long after initial broadcast, because they have to pay for those rights. The BBC has an enormous back catalogue going back decades, but not so much from the last decade. Rather than put that back catalogue on iPlayer, free to those who paid for its creation, some of it is on Britbox so we have to pay again to watch it.

For those talking about the "obsolete" iPlayer and BBC Sounds, I find them no more difficult to navigate than Netflix and infinitely better to navigate than Amazon with it's many interleaved "channels" in the guide that are paid for extras.

Amazon is the worst for browsing, iPlayer more or less on a par with Netflix,although none are actually good for browsing. Most streaming service front ends are only really good if you already know what you are specifically looking for by name. Even genre searches are poor IMO. You'd think all these streaming services with the $millions of development funds would be able to compete with the many interfaces and customisation options the free Kodi media player can manage. I have Kodi running exactly the way that suits me with a skin of my choice and the options that work my way, ie many text based titles I can read per screen with a description in a sidebar, not silly "thumbnails" I sometimes struggle to identify with maybe 6 or 8 per screen and much scrolling.

TL;DR Streaming services: Great content, shit interfaces

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Slow moving

The problem with relying on an advertisement funded TV service is that it's all about the numbers, because viewer figures drive how much they can charge for the ad. slots.

This means that they screen large amounts of what will generate the most viewers, so we end up with seemingly endless voyeuristic social competition shows like Love Island, I'm a Celebrety, Big Brother and many, many more in the same vein, with much of the rest of the time being filled by cheap-to-make game shows and soaps. (although the BBC does these last two as well).

I don't remember the last time I saw a really informative, new documentary program on terrestrial UK commercial television. Programmes like World in Action, or the World at War just don't exist on the commercial stations. Well, maybe Channel 4 is an exception, as they do some interesting things.

What the BBC can (and according to it's charter commitments, must) still do is to produce far more niche and educational content. I find it extremely interesting that so much of the content of the documentary satellite and cable channels end up carrying repeats of BBC generated programmes.

If the BBC was forced to chase ratings, then there is just so much that we would lose as they chased the mindless, majority audience.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

For me, one of the main attractions of BBC (mostly consumed via iPlayer) is the lack of advertising - I can just dive in and watch a show uninterrupted.

Back in the days of just 4 or 5 channels I could understand that adverts appeared on ITV/C4/C5 because they were commercial free-to-air, but when I tried a subscription service (Sky via satellite) I was amazed at how many of the extra channels that I was paying a subscription for also carried advertising.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

Other than BBC, my wife and I try to avoid watching any broadcast channel live - for many, advert breaks form almost a third of the broadcast (and most repeated several times within an hour). Record so the ads can be skipped through.

SCD has had several mentions - it's not as yet as hyped and moronic as ITV's offerings, but they're working at it. The proportion of actual dance content seems to be reducing year on year (at least that's the impression I get, though it may be my memory blanking out the "filler-content" from previous years).

The problem chasing viewer numbers is that it stifles creativity - you end up with variations on what is already available (and yet more "reality" shows that do not meet the requirements of the BBC charter - to educate and entertain).

</rant>

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Slow moving

"For me, one of the main attractions of BBC (mostly consumed via iPlayer) is the lack of advertising - I can just dive in and watch a show uninterrupted."

This is why streaming took off in the US. The ad breaks are so infuriatingly long and frequent that switching to streaming was a backlash from the viewers and "no brainer" leading to the phrase "cord cutters". Once it took off there, it was inevitable it would spread even to markets where the advert "problem" was nowhere near as bad, to the detriment of the often reasonably good incumbents.

Here in the UK, we often looked enviously cross the Atlantic at the many TV channels they could choose from. What we didn't see was the ad breaks they suffered and problems having so many channels to fill when there's a finite amount of good content. The rot set in to the BBC and ITV when satellite and cable came to the UK but took a long time to really set in. Yeah, only having two channels, eventually five, to pick from doesn't seem like much, but is there really that much good content on the 300+ channels we have now? Even the higher end documentary channels like Discovery and NatGeo have very little new content, they are 90%+ repeats. Once you've seen all the stuff you want to see, suddenly you find there's not a lot to watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

Turn it off! Turn it off! :-)

[AndrueC]

Re: Slow moving

For me, one of the main attractions of BBC (mostly consumed via iPlayer) is the lack of advertising - I can just dive in and watch a show uninterrupted.

Has no-one ever introduced you to the concept of a DVR?

I've not seen(*) any adverts on TV since I got my first Sky+ box. That must have been nigh-on twenty years ago. I haven't watched live TV since other than when on holiday.

Back in the days of just 4 or 5 channels I could understand that adverts appeared on ITV/C4/C5 because they were commercial free-to-air, but when I tried a subscription service (Sky via satellite) I was amazed at how many of the extra channels that I was paying a subscription for also carried advertising.

It's not an either-or scenario. The Sky subscription is a useful revenue source for the channels but it doesn't cover all their expense. The adverts help make their business model work.

(*)Well they sometimes scream past while I forward through or skip over a break but they barely register. Currently four button presses to skip forward two minutes gets passed the break.

[navarac]

Re: Slow moving

You might as well watch a recording of last years BBC Christmas schedule, you are getting the same, in the same order this year. Sorry, for me, the BBC has just lost it and the TV Licence is money down the drain. (And I'm retired, not Generation Z).

[AndrueC]

Re: Slow moving

I wouldn't go that far (speaking personally) but the BBC is definitely not the major source of my programming interest. I watch its output slightly more often than that of ITV or C4 but taken together I doubt if the 'terrestrial gang' account for more than a quarter of my viewing.

The majority of my viewing is Discovery, Sky History, Crime&Investigation, Sky Crime, ID (how I wish they'd start an HD channel) and an honourable mention to Alibi.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

Where? I've looked. There is none.

[werdsmith]

Re: Slow moving

If the other providers are supposed to be entertaining, how come I find more entertainment on BBC?

This is the point of the BBC remit. They provide programming for things that wouldn't normally get air if it were only commercial considerations. Therefore those of us that like BBC 4, Radio 4 and Countryfile get catered for. I also prefer the BBC over the Fast Food TV that dumbed down services like Netflix offer. There is more stuff available on BBC than I have time to watch/listen.

The annoying thing is that the continuing pressure from the dumbed down audience has led to BBC planning to take the education/arts BBC 4 to online only in favour of the reality trash TV BBC 3. They are also moving local and regional TV away from some regions. It's been hilarious watching the mealy mouthed twats come on TV trying to justify this.

[ICam]

Re: Slow moving

The thing about BBC Three is that it was a good channel the first time around, in my opinion. It had good comedy on it, therefore, I was sad when it was demoted to online only. Because of that, I was happy to hear of its return, but since it has returned, it does not seem to be its former self. I do not find myself seeing anything much interesting in the EPG for BBC Three now. Perhaps the programming does appeal to a certain youth market, of which I am no longer the target audience.

I watch loads of documentaries on BBC Four, so I'm sad it is to be demoted to online only and now find myself wishing BBC Three had remained online only, if it meant BBC Four would be spared.

[Alan J. Wylie]

Re: Slow moving

Entertaining at the expense of educating and informing?

[Arthur the cat]

Re: Slow moving

Entertaining at the expense of educating and informing?

Being educated and informed is out of fashion these days, it interferes with arguing on social media.

[tiggity]

Re: Slow moving

Indeed BBC4 (BBC channel we watch most) is Python parrot like as a free to air service (will soon be online only)

Not a fan of that, as live in arse end of nowhere so no fibre here and with "TV via the internet" it can take us several hours to watch an hour of content with buffering bollocks*

More suspiciously there seems to be a decline in "new" content on BBC4 - obviously some of this could be COVID related as travel restrictions / lockdown etc. would affect various documentaries etc. especially where filming mainly outside of UK...The cynic in me thinks the move to online only is also an excuse to cut funding on the less populist fare that BBC4 generally has (though it does have some populist dross too, just not as huge a percentage) and that less mainstream output will continue to decline.

* Do use iPlayer from time to time to watch various older content that has not been recently broadcast (& don't watch much TV so plenty of historic and more recent "unwatched" iPlayer content for me without needing to worry about netflix etc), so know the PITA that awaits when BBC4 off air

[iron]

Re: Slow moving

iPlayer is a terrible app, it buffers most programmes even if you have great Internet. I never see bufferring from Netflix, Amazon, Disney or YouTube but get it every time I try to watch something on iPlayer.

Somehow Channel 4's app is even worse, it often freezes at the end of an advert and refuses to play the rest of the programme. It also doesn't remember where you are up to making restarting the stream a pain. I eventually gave up and uninstalled it.

I've never tried ITV's app because they havn't had anything worth watching since the 1980s.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Slow moving

> iPlayer is a terrible app, it buffers most programmes even if you have great Internet. I never see bufferring from Netflix, Amazon, Disney or YouTube but get it every time I try to watch something on iPlayer.

I too tend to get iPlayer buffering - whilst on the other services, instead of buffering, they like to skip, so instead of the whole programme (albeit with pauses) I get a continuous delivery, just with a few bits missing to help keep the bitrate down. Quite a neat trick, really. Oh, except YouTube - I gave up watching YouTube directly a few years back, because downloading and then playing back from the local drive was the only way to get smooth playback.

Luckily, there are DVDs and BluRay, so much more reliable than this online stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

And you can nip down the charity shop and get the DVDs on the cheap. And best of all you can use Handbrake or some such to burn them to an m4v so you can stick them on your phone and watch them on the plane, or wherever else you like when you like.

No one trying to force you to watch 'their' content on their terms.

[Jan 0]

Re: Slow moving

Isn't that because Netflix allocates a larger buffer, so it rarely empties?

++ Bring back Dabsy! Now! ++

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

"iPlayer is a terrible app, it buffers most programmes even if you have great Internet"

You don't have great internet, says network engineer bloke. Either that or a crap telly/laptop/whatever. iPlayer is delivered by a sodding great CDN. The app has been around for quite a while now and has been honed a fair bit on many, many devices.

I have successfully streamed without much buffering over some pretty variable quality hotel wifi in Italy, Spain, Portugal (int al) over OpenVPN from home in Somerset. I have a 80/20 FTTC at home. I'm running OVPN over TCP which isn't optimal for streaming thanks to the joys of window scaling and a few other details but it does work surprisingly well. I don't spend much on laptops either, preferring hand me downs.

You need, very roughly, 10Mbs-1 (mega bits per second) to stream a 1080p video. It's a nice round number to remember and on the high side. Latency isn't an issue with streaming provided ACKs get through OK for the tunnel. You don't want to game over that link though! VoIP is bearable but not fun due to latency - SIP n RTP needs some kilobits per sec but over 50ms latency is noticeable. That said, thanks to the pandemic (!) we have become much better able to deal with latency.

I remember making phone calls in 1980s to Aus which was routed by satellite and cost an absolute fortune per minute. Even a circuit switched POTS effort to Germany from UK or vv had some noticeable latency. Nowadays I get 60ms ping to Google's Anycast DNS at home via wifi through two lots of plaster over red brick, two switches to my APU2 router, a FTTC bridge modem and a internets presence in Telford (at least 200 miles as the cable runs)

You might have a problem streaming iPlayer but it isn't down to to the BBC. Be a technician/engineer and do some research and diagnostics. I'd start with plugging a laptop directly into my router to establish a local baseline and work out from there.

[Evilgoat76]

Re: Slow moving

Nope its Iplayer, and worse, BBC bloody Sounds

I can have a book on in Audible and it'll NEVER drop out on the often, thousands of miles I do a month.

BBC Sounds, doesnt appear to buffer, can't handle the network going away and coming back, assuming the app doesn't just close for no reason. There are specific areas that if I know I'm going to be going through them, I won't even start a podcast (Three Legged Cross in Dorset is one spot, hardly in the middle of no where)

IPlayer on a 500/500 FTTP is similarly hit and miss, assuming you can navigate its awful interface. But then again I don't do that often... Everything in here is cabled and monitored six ways to Sunday and as others have mentioned. I'll get complaints of no network while everything else is just fine.

The BBC Missed the boat a long time ago, this isn't news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

"500/500 FTTP" (you have to the Premises and I have to the Cabinet - your's is much more impressive than mine!)

I have FTTC 80/20 at home. I can stream at least six 1080p simultaneously. At 500Mbs-1 with full fibre you get at least five times that bandwidth and lower latency. Probably sub 20ms.

At work I currently have six WANs, one of which is a 1Gbs-1 leased line. Ping to Google Anycast DNS or Quad9 is sub 10ms. Just checked and Quad9 is about 5ms. At home I see 75ms latency on a ping to Quad9.

[Is It Me]

Re: Slow moving

Audible (at least on Android) doesn't stream, it downloads all or most of the file first.

I haven't had any real issues with BBC iPlayer here or using VPN back here when abroad, I don't use the BBC Sounds app but wouldn't rely on streaming when driving.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Slow moving

You might have a problem streaming iPlayer but it isn't down to to the BBC. Be a technician/engineer and do some research and diagnostics. I'd start with plugging a laptop directly into my router to establish a local baseline and work out from there.

Damn. My cable won't reach your router.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

Good catch.

[werdsmith]

Re: Slow moving

iPlayer is a terrible app, it buffers most programmes even if you have great Internet. I never see bufferring from Netflix, Amazon, Disney or YouTube but get it every time I try to watch something on iPlayer.

I've never seen buffering on iPlayer.

[MJI]

Re: Slow moving

I haven't tried ITVs app as they do not support my device.

Therefore due to their erratic broadcasting I ignore their output.

Their loss, plenty to watch on the decent channels.

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC 4

Hear here! with regard to BBC 4.

I can't recall the last time I sat and watched anything on BBC1 or BBC2, and I don't think I have watched ITV since I was a kid in the 80's but some of the programmes on BBC 4 are just excellent beyond words. Not mass market, not mass audience, just good factual well presented programmes. No need to shout or abuse the audience, just treat them as grown ups with a brain. It's become about the only thing in the last decade that I bother watching, and if there is nothing worth watching, I generally switch off. A few of the Freeview channels may have interesting programmes, but are ruined by the non stop adverts. I never knew medieval history or canal journeys could be so interesting or educational as they are when on BBC4 - but such programmes would never appeal to the mass market of the advertisers. Even Michael Portillos train journeys would probably never get made in a commercial world.

But I do concur that this past 18 months has seen a slide in programming - again, I'm not sure whether that is as a result of the constraints of COVID or just budget reductions, but if/when BBC4 goes online only, it will probably be the end of my TV and TV licence days.

Now, speaking of quality programmes that were interspersed amongst popularist items at peak times, thus broadening ones mind and imagination - who remembers the excellent "Connections" with James Burke from approx 1980? A programme series that would just not get made today, but blew the mind of this 12 year old boy.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: BBC 4

the excellent "Connections" with James Burke

For some reason, I reember quite well him explaining why "Live" TV broadcasts are not "live", but events that happened in the past when you take into account the time taken for the signals to travel from camera to your TV

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: BBC 4

"who remembers the excellent "Connections" with James Burke from approx 1980?"

I watched both series just recently. Still very watchable and mostly still relevant today.

[Alan J. Wylie]

Re: BBC 4

the excellent "Connections" with James Burke

The best timed shot in Television history: [mix and set light to them] You get that <points>

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Slow moving

"Indeed BBC4 (BBC channel we watch most) is Python parrot like as a free to air service (will soon be online only)"

They already tried that with BBC3, failed, and brought it back as a broadcast channel. Being aimed at "the yoof", that makes me wonder if they simply got it wrong with the format or if "the yoof" actually quite like broadcast TV for some use cases.

[codejunky]

Re: Slow moving

@Alan J. Wylie

"Entertaining at the expense of educating and informing?"

There is a fantastic invention called the internet. Which follows from the ideal of books. Which follows from the ideal of teaching. Which comes from the ideal of parenting.

But if your kids enjoy education from TV there are kids channels and discovery/history etc channels. There are plenty options still, depends what you let them watch

[Alan J. Wylie]

Re: Slow moving

I've been doing Internet stuff since (checks daybooks) May 1988: BSD 4.2/4.3

I don't watch television at all. For me, the Internet suffices. I do get some of my news from the BBC web site though.

I don't have kids.

P.S. Over the years I've worked for Pye TVT, Pace and Echostar

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Slow moving

Using the wide variety of media platforms unfortunately often does the opposite of education. True, the content is there is you want to look for it. Bu so does the ability to restrict what you watch to just what you feel you want to watch.

Linear TV used to serve a purpose because it encouraged people to watch things that they did not necessarily choose, and could end up broadening their outlook on the world. And the restricted nature of pre-cable/satellite TV often meant that people actually turned it off and went and did something else.

Nowadays, if all you are interested in is football, or Friends, or game shows, or Kids programmes, you can endlessly channel hop or just stream only those things you want, and never see anything else, or have a motivation to get up from the couch.

This is, in my mind, what Alan was pointing out, that the BBC generates diversity.

You quote the documentary channels. Just look at the programmes they carry, and see how many of them the BBC had a hand in producing. Where will we be in 20 years time if the BBC were to stop generating that type of programme. Still broadcasting the content we're watching now?

[myhandler]

Re: Slow moving

Yes, the same with printed newspapers. It was very easy to read the first few paragraphs before deciding if it was interesting to you - I'd then often read the whole piece. The web doesnt have that appeal. There's so much garbage that we learn to make instant judgements and reject stuff that doesn't appeal before gving it a try.

It's when you see or read stuff that you had no idea you might find interesting that you learn new things.

Sadly BBC documentaries have been pretty weak for years along with a reliance on the presenter. Not Mr Attenborough I might add, but Brian Cox says the same stuff, too slowly, over and over again.

I'd rather see more from Jim Al Khalili or Nick Lane - a whole grown up series on evolution could be quite something.

But the funding, the funding - and the role government plays to grind them into the ground.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Slow moving

Sadly BBC documentaries have been pretty weak...

... since they decided people were too stupid and had to see all historic events re-enacted, rather than simply explained. What was wrong with the OU programmes? 20 minutes exploring some mathematical function or other. Hilbert's Hotel anyone? It's all been downhill since then.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Slow moving

Sadly BBC documentaries have been pretty weak...

One of the reasons I gave up watching TV - documentaries morphing into attempts to keep those with attention span deficits from switching channel with repeats of the same few facts and an emphasis on dramatic reconstruction.

The rest of the programmming is a race to the bottom.

The downside has been getting hassled by the TV licencing busy bodies who can't accept that it is perfectly possible to live without consuming TV.

[Alan J. Wylie]

Re: Slow moving

This is, in my mind, what Alan was pointing out, that the BBC generates diversity.

Yes, however more to the point, it's the BBC's mission statement in its charter, courtesy of Lord Reith (via the link I posted earlier)

The BBC charter.

5. The BBC’s Mission

The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.

[codejunky]

Re: Slow moving

@Alan J. Wylie

"5. The BBC’s Mission

The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain."

That has taken a bit of a hit for a while.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Slow moving

Education about Brexit went well...

But then it is (now) the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation keeping the Brexit voting gammons happy.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Slow moving

"Linear TV used to serve a purpose because it encouraged people to watch things that they did not necessarily choose"

Open University programming and, if you were off sick and not in school, the schools programming.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Slow moving

"And the restricted nature of pre-cable/satellite TV often meant that people actually turned it off and went and did something else"

The BBC used to have, during the school holidays...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Don't_You%3F

https://youtu.be/3FQktsKvXcg

[AndrueC]

Re: Slow moving

Speaking as a fan (or at least regular viewer) of Discovery I question its educational value. Sky History is slightly better but both of them sensationalise and even script their content. It's good entertainment but not very educational.

[Mike 137]

"the BBC would be active in future in planning for the switching off of traditional broadcasting"

But why? Please explain the actual benefit of eliminating diversity. The more we 'converge' our communications the higher the chance that a single failure will take the whole lot down, whether by accident or attack. We seem hell bent on making ourselves more and more vulnerable as we increasingly depend on global comms to keep our societies operational and safe. Seems to me, that's not an ideal policy, and we'll find this out the hard way one day.

[NewModelArmy]

"the BBC would be active in future in planning for the switching off of traditional broadcasting"

Completely agree with you. It seems to be, follow a certain path for the sake of it.

Many people do not have access to the internet at the speeds required. If you look at the freeview channels you can watch without any problems. Online you have to have accounts for every one of the separate channel broadcasters. In addition, many channels do not have an online presence.

The report actually states that 73% use terrestrial broadcasting reception, so that is hardly a reason to go purely online when 16% are IPlayer based viewing.

The other aspect is that as far as i can see from non UK people online, they think the BBC is brilliant for its content. The BBC provides so much diverse content which subscription services do not have to - news, political programmes, general programming etc.

[MJI]

A few things of interest.

Original DTTV access.

BBC did tend to run loose with the specifications and exploiting the not realised loop holes. such as changing channels on each service forcing some receivers to continually retune until updated.

Press 1 for BBC1 get BBC Choice.

Picture though was superb then, like a DVD.

Pay was a bit pants though, CAM was required (on a shelf somewhere), I gave up on that about a week before the bankrupcy.

Freeview

Quite correctly the future of DTTV was handed to the major broadcasters. And a new specification was written up.

BBC pushed for no compulsary CAM (with ITV C4 C5 agreement) to protect their FTA access, and to prevent a paywall.

The first Freeview DTTV devices often had card slots but no hardware to support them.

DSO provided the first problem with moving from 2K to 8K, this knocked out quite a few tuners, some due to hardware limitations (first gen Sony IDTVs, Nokia dodgy boxes among many others), some due to lack of software support from the manufacturers (eg Pace).

I now use Freeview and Freesat, I have too much good TV to watch.

One PVR recommendation, make sure the word HUMAX is written on it.

[BenDwire]

Re: A few things of interest.

You've just reminded me of my OnDigital experiences in 2000. I has just moved to within eyesight of the Sandy transmitter, and my new shiny digital TV box wouldn't work. Back in those days when service was still a thing, they even sent a man round to investigate. He concluded that I needed an attenuator in the input lead as the signal was far too loud, despite being fed from the a tiny aerial in the loft.

After that, it worked reasonably well for the short duration the service existed, and then went on to be my first set-top box on the early days of Freeview. Since then those duties have been taken over by a Humax box which is still going strong (albeit with customised firmware).

Beer, as it's Friday.

[MJI]

Re: A few things of interest.

My Ondigital subscription was £3 per month.

IDTV one

[Steve K]

Re: A few things of interest.

The custom firmware on the FOX-T2-HD has given what is a 10+ year old device a new lease of life (with a 4TB HDD upgrade too)!

Simple things like not wiping your recording schedule and channel lists when the channels change - why on earth the Freeview spec does not allow for this is beyond me!

I think that mine may be on the way out as I get the green/black HDMI issue on my new TV. It doesn’t owe me anything.

[BenDwire]

Re: A few things of interest.

I get the Green/Black issue on my box, and it's all to do with CEC implementation on your TV. In my case, if the box records an HD channel while the TV and AV Amp are off, then I'll often end up with a flashing screen.

I get better results now that I've updated the bootloader (check the hummy.tv forums), but I still have to reboot the box now and again; I have a shortcut to the box's maintenance screen on my phone, so it's a simple two click thing now.

[Steve K]

Re: A few things of interest.

I’ll check that out.

I have been looking at others with this issue on hummy.tv and there seem to be a few with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A few things of interest.

"Since then those duties have been taken over by a Humax box which is still going strong (albeit with customised firmware)"

Same here - it might be an old FOXSAT HDR (with the customised firmware by Raydon) but it has also had its internal SATA HDD replaced (twice) now - once from a 320Gb to a 1Tb and now it has a 2Tb...plus the customised firmware allows remote connection/control to the STB via the network port AND older programs are easily archived to a spare 8Tb NAS box.

No need now to watch any "live" broadcasts by Auntie Beeb - and Radio 4 and iPad provide plenty of "current" news stories.

[DoctorPaul]

Re: A few things of interest.

Upvote for referencing Raydon's amazing firmware mods for the old Humax FoxSat receiver, and don't forget the other patch that flips a single bit so that HD recordings aren't encrypted.

Fully featured web interface, FTP server just for starters. Such a shame that Humax grokked what was going on and encrypted the firmware in their later models.

That said, thanks to Raydon my poor little mini-tower media server is now running 7 disk drives giving about 27 terabytes of storage!

[Spamfast]

Where are my waders?

I'm as guilty as the next person but broadcast TV - digital or analogue - is an order of magnitude more environmentally friendly than all of us streaming from servers at our own whim.

Fuck the planet so I can watch Game Of Thrones is not a great solution.

[Steve Crook]

Re: Where are my waders?

Except that the world has moved on and has become accustomed to on demand streaming and there's little chance of things going back to the way they were. What the BBC does won't affect what the RotW does and going back to a solely broadcast model will just isolate the BBC from the world markets that make it viable.

[DuncanLarge]

Re: Where are my waders?

The "world" has not moved on.

Only a few have become "accustomed" to streaming. Many of them are moving away from too much of that because of the problem with binge watching and of course the expense of paying £9.99 for every single channel a month.

I once sat on netflix for months, watching NOTHING BUT star trek NG. Its a brilliant show of course but its all I watched, I was totally unaware of anything else, even the news. I binge easily so I need live TV to stop me doing it. Maybe there should be a setting to turn on anti-binge mode so you cant watch more than 2 or 3 episodes of the same series in as many days. I'm too lazy to change settings so this will be a good deterrent, for a while maybe.

I dont see this world has moved on line. Freeview/freesat and other live TV stations still provide vast amounts more to view than I find buried on netflix or amazon prime. Just today I was reminded of an anime I wanted to finish as I started watching it long ago. No, I'm not signing up to crunchroll, I'm not dedicated enough for that but surely amazon or netflix will have it? Netflix dont, and Amazon have a placeholder to say they once did have it but I was too late and its gone now.

I can however get it on DVD...

World has moved on? No, more like people have narrowed their choice due to convenience and that damn binging factor.

[Johnb89]

The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

The BBC gets most of its money with the backing of the police, an advantage many businesses would love to have. Do they take that money and do their job of being a public service broadcaster? Only partly. For example: A true public service broadcaster would tell me how to watch the footie no matter what channel its on... the BBC does not do that, they only talk about BBC channels/radio/app/website. The BBC's attitude is to compete, and they have the field tilted in their favour.

Then they spend money on silly things... Search? Changing the logo of their apps every 6 months instead of making them work well? Pushing DAB on us even though it hardly works?

That's ignoring that the licence fee has to be the least efficient way of collecting a tax imaginable.

[Pascal Monett]

To further your conclusion, I learned not long ago that France is dropping the TV tax that was in effect since forever.

For the French government to actually remove a tax is almost as groundbreaking as finding life on another planet.

[Boring Bob]

No, the French have also removed Road Tax 10 years ago, much to the annoyance of cyclists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, from this year in fact - I got a rebate - but no French TV channel was ever ad free - so where did the money really go ?

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

Don't blame the BBC for DAB radio in the UK (although they did have a big hand in the original specification).

The blame properly lies with the UK Government, who have been chasing a digital only media strategy for several decades. They see the free'd up spectrum as a resource that they can license and sell.

In order to compress more radio into a smaller spectrum, they've saddled us with a poor system by rushing through a too early standard, with too many channels carrying the same basic type of content, at the expense of quality and coverage (how may of the commercial DAB music stations broadcast low-bit rate mono?).

The government appears to have now decided that broadcast media using the EM spectrum now needs to go completely, after failing in their previous digital strategy, just to get the job done. And they're giving the regulators an agenda (again) to try to make it happen.

Just be glad that people pushed back on FM radio. IIRC, it was supposed to disappear by 2010 according to their original schedule. If they want to eliminate the use of radio-frequency broadcasting, they need to make basic digital services a regulated essential service, available at a cost affordable to everyone (which may mean free to certain segments of the population), not leaving it to a market that will by definition exclude those who lack the ability to pay!

[DuncanLarge]

Re: The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

> Just be glad that people pushed back on FM radio

My car radio certainly is! I usually listen to a couple of stations on DAB but no DAB in the car ad the stations streaming options barley works when driving about the area.

Local BBC radio it is on my 20 min drive to work. And its great.

> they need to make basic digital services a regulated essential service, available at a cost affordable to everyone (which may mean free to certain segments of the population)

I may end up joining them, I think most believe OAP's just will dissapear leaving tech savvy internet surfacing streaming 80 year olds. Thing is, you never know how many faculties you will retain as you get older, you may end up only being able to, well, turn on the TV and press the channel button. Not every 30 something today will be able to stream when they are 86... they never think about that.

[martinusher]

Re: The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

OAP, sort of, here.

Even today our real OAPs (that's mid-80s or so) are tech savvy beyond your wildest dreams. They're the ones with the iPhone 14 and iWatches because, among other things, they can afford them. This is the real issue. Broadcast TV works because its "free", its not technology because there's not a whole lot of daylight between a legacy cable box and a streaming box. Its just that all those subscriptions add up and people really need to be able to eat.

I'm only in my mid-70s, not particularly old by local standards. I spent much of my working life developing networking of one sort or another so I'm probably a bit more technowhatever than most but still this idea that us crusties can't be trusted with anything more than an 'on' switch is well past its sell-by date. I think you'll find that the main differentiators between 'us' and our younger 'them' are details like "lack of enthusiasm" (the damn stuff should just work), unwillingness to mess with 5" touch screens (we favor the "big print" editions) and the fact that many of us know how this stuff works so know when we're being pushed a pile of crap masquerading as 'new features'.

[werdsmith]

Re: The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

I'll stop helping the OAPs out every time they ask me about their tech then. I guess they've been attention seeking all this time.

[werdsmith]

Re: The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

The BBC gets most of its money with the backing of the police, an advantage many businesses would love to have.

As far as I know, most shops have this too. Go to your local Tesco and try and walk out with a few bottles of whisky, see what happens.

[chrisgreen156]

Re: The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

more like you go to your local Morrisons by a couple of bottles of whisky and the police come and arrest you for not giving Tesco it's cut

[Johnb89]

Re: The BBC does not compete on a level playing field

My local Tesco does not INSIST that I shop there, however. I don't have a choice about paying the BBC.

[Alan J. Wylie]

traditional broadcasting network

maintain a traditional broadcasting network because of the greater resilience it provides over digital and the universal coverage it enables

Demonstrated by the outcry when the Bilsdale transmitting mast caught fire.

Questions in Parliament

[Grunchy]

I never even tried out Netflix yet

YouTube went berzerk and flooded their player software with commercials, so I’d been forced to upgrade to “NewPipe” freeware that defeats the commercials by exploiting the download function to act as an alternate streamer. Of course I had borrowed Netflix credentials from various partners on my trusty old PS3 for years but I never once bothered to try it out; I don’t think they have anything worth watching? BBC archive puts out tons of interesting archival footage all the time. I think Netflix has the Game of Thrones series but it never sounded interesting to me. Of course I loved the 1978 Rotoscope cartoon movie of Lord of the Rings, too bad they never completed the project. Forced me to read all the books! And yes, absolutely exposed the glaring plot hole about the Great Eagles flying indiscriminately into Mordor. I was greatly disappointed in the CGI remake, of course. Couldn’t even get through the first movie. Well, they make out the Elves as having superhuman Kung-fu powers, don’t they. If you want to make a 1970s Kung-fu movie that’s magnificent, I’m all for it: but not in LOTR please! Two completely different things, my opinion.

[cipnt]

Are they comparing apples to apples?

Sure, the BBC is renowned on the world stage for quality programming and its World News Service (unavailable in the UK), but it is not a worldwide service provider.

The BBC isn't in the same league as Netflix.

As was stated in this article, the BBC's income is about £5bn while Netflix gets some $30bn.

The audience and reach is also different: 20 million uk households vs 200+ million paying netflix users across all continents.

One produces most of its content and has expensive production facilities for that, while the other mostly commissions or just licenses content, ironically a lot of it from the BBC.

I don't get this whole "world beating" mantra and competing with the daddy/ Kleenex of streaming.

The empire is dead. Being the best in the UK will suffice

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Are they comparing apples to apples?

5 va 30 billion means that BBC should still be producing 1/6 of Netflix output…

…they are not (any more)

[ICam]

Re: Are they comparing apples to apples?

I down-voted your comment because it does not appear you're comparing apples to apples by simply talking about output.

I don't see any of the following on Netflix:

UK national and international news services.

UK national and international radio services.

UK regional radio or news TV services, along with the staff and infrastructure required to produce content for them.

Any web content that provides any of the above.

Any web content relating to educational material linked to UK key stages to support learning in UK schools.

You can't easily compare the commercial streaming services against the total output of the BBC. The BBC has a broader remit; it may not suit everybody, but that's how it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Are they comparing apples to apples?

Do you know now that you mention it, I don’t remember watching live footage from Kyiv on the first day of the war on Netflix. Do they even have a news division with a worldwide news gathering network?

[ICam]

Re: Are they comparing apples to apples?

As far as I am aware, no, it does not. Netflix is a pure VoD streaming service - a tech company really.

I might be wrong, but as far as I know, Netflix has no means of production itself, so made-for-Netflix content is produced externally.

[jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid]

"When the UK started the switch to digital TV, in November 1998, the BBC FAILED to recognise the fact that they could then have implemented a subscriber based service (instead of a paper TV licence) for the required external Digital TV receivers, using a "conditional access module"."

I disagree. I think the BBC were forward thinking in rejecting the CAM model as old fashioned. If anything the BBC were too far ahead of the game when they brought out the iPlayer (the internet streaming service). I remember when it came out, the BBC came in for a lot of criticism from the ISPs who blamed the iPlayer for overloading their bandwidth.

This was against the backdrop of the same ISPs selling broadband services like "super fast" and "smooth video streaming" and claiming to offer bandwidths that few customers could actually use because there were no widespread providers of those video streaming services. Then the iPlayer came along as a service for all that could actually use those bandwidths and the ISPs were caught out for overselling all those years. When customers actually started using the bandwidth the ISPs were promising, but couldn't deliver, the ISPs complained.

[Wally Dug]

Project Kangaroo et al.

And don't forget Project Kangaroo, announced in 2007 - a single streaming platform for BBC, ITV, CH4 and CH5 that was booted into touch by the Competition Commission courtesy of Sky (I believe it was) as they were too scared of the competition. What if it had been allowed to proceed?

And there's the "red button" additional or background content that seems to have dwindled.

And the amazing web site that was hammered by the Board of Governors as there was too much content on it?

The BBC foresaw streaming and content provision 15 years ago, yet they have been hampered every step of the way, only allowed to invest so much (i.e. not enough) and it therefore either fails or falls short. Then, that allows the Board of Governors or the government or Sky or right-wing media to blast it as being inadequate and outdated and demand that it is stripped of its power. (The very "power", of course, that has already been diluted or removed by the aforementioned groups.)

[nijam]

Re: Project Kangaroo et al.

> ... the Board of Governors or the government or Sky or right-wing media to blast it ...

You left out left wing media & politicians, who seem to hate it at least as much. It's been pointed out several times in the past as (sort-of) evidence that the BBC is less biased that many other new providers.

[werdsmith]

Re: Project Kangaroo et al.

Yes, BBC receives a more or less equal number of complaints accusing it of having right wing or left win bias. This shows where the bias actually is.

[chrisgreen156]

Re: Project Kangaroo et al.

you know the trope of we get hate from everybody so we must be balanced needs to die

because you know when you upset everybody it normally indicates you are not doing a good job

it indicates you might be doing more than one thing wrong

[elsergiovolador]

TNI

BBC has lost it years ago, now they are just a WEF propaganda tube.

If only WEF was paying for it and not citizens BBC works against. It's quite obscene if you think about it more.

[that one in the corner]

Re: TNI

And he's back on form.

(Together) we will make our plans

(Together) we will start life new

(Together) this is what we'll do

(Go WEF) this is what we're gonna do

...

(Go WEF) this is our destiny

[Neil Barnes]

Re: TNI

Now why on earth would the Water Environment Forum care about broadcasting?

[jollyboyspecial]

Damned if you don't, damned if you do

The current government is very clearly against the BBC

As such if they were putting effort into abandoning "traditional broadcasting"* then the government and its watchdogs would I'm sure be ready to criticise them. However they will also criticise them for failing to do so.

* Traditional broadcasting is all digital these days, which makes your headline look pretty flaky

[Anonymous Coward]

DAB ?

'nuff said

[jollyboyspecial]

Re: DAB ?

DAB was forced on the BBC by the government and Ofcom

[Anonymous Coward]

Auntie Beeb must compete with digital monsters like Netflix

if their idea is to keep harassing me (yeah, I take personally what happens on MY screen and MY computer) to sign up to iplayer by shitting pop ups every 2nd text on their website, then I'm happy to use get_iplayer, or torrents, and for trivial bits, just to walk away.

[Chris Hills]

IPv6 please!

I do wish the BBC would join the rest of us in 2022 and support IPv6. They are one of the few large content providers along with Twitch that are stuck on legacy IPv4.

[Alan J. Wylie]

Re: IPv6 please!

Once upon a time: BBC blog: World IPv6 day 2011

the bare "bbc.co.uk" domain name is IPv6 enabled, but just 301 redirects to www. which is IPv4 only

[DuncanLarge]

Re: IPv6 please!

IPv6?

If your ISP even supports it.

[DuncanLarge]

The day

The day that radio broadcasting is replaced with client server IP based delivery via a rented medium and implementing tracking and monitoring systems while requiring TV's to begin running antivirus software is the day I get rid of the TV and read books instead.

Or will they provide free bandwidth and ISP connectivity al-la Freeview or must everyone be able to afford to rent a pipe or rent data over 5G to watch what was once, free to air? Will there be "free to IP"?

I have a degree in CS and work in IT and I have to say I quite enjoy having devices that simply receive data broadcast to them, for free with no rental etc. A simpler state of being, simpler technology. After 5 days working on windows and linux systems at work I love a lazy saturday morning where I simply turn on the TV and have it dumbly display episodes of Lovejoy, live, till 10 am when it stops and I must naturally get up and do something else. The PC is off, I'm not watching youtube while having breakfast like I usually do during the week, no, I'm just watching dumb live TV, the adverts come and I get up and brew the tea or start breakfast. My phone? Upstairs, left there till later in the day when I rejoin the ever connected "you will answer!" world.

Live TV beats streaming in 1 regard, I cant easily binge it!

Being a bit of an enthusiast in radio comms as well I also enjoy the tapestry of radio uses we have, however it looks like all spectrum will eventually be bought up and monetized by mobile networks because they can suck money off you for a mediocre amount of data.

I'm someone who likes replacements for things to actually, well, replace what came before. That means they must be fit for purpose and thus not just replace the older thing simply because its shiny, but also replace and implement all the functionality of the old (at least the functionality that is used and not just sitting there). Thus if I'm to have to accept I will have a TV that communicates to central servers everything about me, displaying notifications, listening to my voise, watching me on its webcam, that is vulnerable to attack via IP etc, then it had better have a "free to IP" mode, that has free bandwidth and network access to view free services. Charge me a subscription to view Sky 1 etc but ITV and C4 are ad supported and thus must be free, at least their main channels.

One day I will have a pension and I will give up streaming at that point as I want the money to go into heat or eat, thus I will be sitting in my chair watching daytime TV for free as pensioners do today. If it is IP TV, or a BBC streaming service, it had better be free for my aged self, data, and all. I think many think that serving pensioners and the "digitally excluded" is just a thing for today, the old folks who never really touched a computer or got on the internet. But thing is, they will still come, although I'm on the net now that is not to say I will be able to do that when I can barely hold a mouse. I might be fit as a fiddle and still coding, then again I may just want to listen to the archers or watch last of the summer wine as I wait for the gardener to finish the lawn.

Some may say "you'll have an alexa" and I say lol, if I hate the idea of every device I use in my home reporting back to home base, why do you think I'm in a hurry to get an Alexa?

If in about 40 years I dont age well, and I choose to dump the TV due to excessive costs, I may just have to sit there and stare at the garden all day, every day, isolated. There wont be any banks, my smartphone is no longer supported because people dont use smart phones any more (use the imagination), there are no libraries to visit as all books are online now, there is no newspaper because who wants to have daily news given to them, I cant recognise the pub as pubs are no longer anything like a pub anymore, the post office is a thing of the past I recount to disbelieving young members of the family I see a few times a year with their strange gadgets I fail to grasp because I keep comparing them to X86 based systems and Linux and my old trusty commodore 64 that I may remember how to program clearly yet I have no clue how the hell I should update the wifi password.

If we stop broadcasting I hope they make IP TV's that just switch on and start playing. No passwords, no sign ins, no subscriptions. Sometimes I want to get away from all the IT and just have a power button, when I'm old and doddery that may be all I can fathom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, is it just me or is the BBC Sounds "app"

a pile o' shite ?

Pretty much impossible to use via Google Drive/Android Auto/todays name when in fullscreen mode (on my car certainly). Only shows the show name, NOT the episode details.

I emailed them and received a patronising reply about how to show episode details when not drviing.

Made me feel a fucktonne less guilty about getting their shows via torrents

[Jan 0]

Re: Also, is it just me or is the BBC Sounds "app"

You didn't even mention how hilariously crap its "Search" is!

++ Bring back Dabsy! Now! ++

[Johnb89]

Re: Also, is it just me or is the BBC Sounds "app"

Sounds and iplayer share that 'feature', even not in car mode.

For example: HIGNFY Series 22, episode 7. Is that from last week, last year, or 5 years ago? No way to tell.

[John70]

Quality Content???

But supporters see it as offering a unique model to bring quality content to a national — indeed global — audience.

Yea... right....

The content is not quality and does not offer anything that interests me. And if it was a subscription service it would have been cancelled a long time ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Quality Content???

The content is not quality and does not offer anything that interests me.

It's not all about you John

[Johnb89]

Re: Quality Content???

It is all about John when John is being forced to pay for it. That gives him a valid opinion.

Us John's stick together, innit.

[cipnt]

Re: Quality Content???

Are you also complaining to Netflix about all the shows they invest in but which you don't ever watch?

If you don't like the BBC amd its programs, then don't watch it and don't pay the licence

[IGotOut]

We have a commervial version of the BBC.

It's called C4 (Channel 4).

You know, the one the tories are flogging off to some faceless mega corp, where it will end up as another fucking awful ITV2 clone.

[DoctorPaul]

Re: We have a commervial version of the BBC.

Fingers crossed that particular stupid idea has been canned. Other stupid ideas are available.

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying to watch content?

TV licence or cable/streaming subscriptions?

I rarely watch TV and can’t understand why you’d pay actual money to do so.

It’s all shite folks, just ignore it.

[aks]

TV Licence future

Television transmitted through the air or via satellite are starting to fade away in favour of streaming. This trend can only accelerate. I know few people who watch any live TV in preference to selecting the content on demand. This includes watching news channels.

Changes are underway in the UK regarding TV watching. Fewer and fewer people are watching live TV and few young people take out BBC licences.

BBC's iPlayer still requires a licence but none of the other streaming providers do unless you want it free of advertisements. The BBC have pulled out of BritBox but will still supply (sell) content to them. BritBox will now become absorbed into the new itvX which replaces itvHub. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BritBox#BritBox_UK_and_ITVX

This article from the Daily Express is interesting in showing which countries have never had a licence fee or have abolished it. A number add it to the electricity bill, which is one way to hide the tax. The article doesn't say what the money raised by the tax is used for. https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1706991/tv-licence-fee-payment-streaming-BBC-UK-2022

The UK Government has floated the idea of funding the BBC out of general taxation as a way of hiding the subsidy. The idea of converting the BBC, BBC2 and BBC4 into one streaming service, presumably as a revamped iPlayer is floated in the Express article.

There is no specific tax for listening to radio, but I assume that the BBC national and local services are paid for from the TV Licence Fee income.

Personally, when living in the UK I have not paid a Licence Fee for about 25 years. For most of my time in the UK I did not have a TV capable of watching any programming. It was occasionally used with VHS or DVD players. This was triggered by failing to find anything worth watching and my strong antipathy to the BBC resulting in my not wanting to fund them. I do not watch live TV, nor have I ever used iPlayer.

The changes underway with itvX will accelerate and my prediction is that within the next couple of years the number of people watching TV over terrestrial or satellite will drop sharply, triggering a panic within the BBC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: TV Licence future

"...triggering a panic within the BBC"

Panic at the BBC set in a few years back, when the salaries of presenters and other "on screen" talent was made public, leading to some red faces and some reductions in salaries (as requested by the individuals themselves). Likewise, the payments made to "talent" who use their own companies to invoice the BBC for their "time" and thereby limit the collection of NI contributions !

And of course, the fortunes spent on middle/upper management salaries at the Beeb and the reduction in annual TV licence increases has put the brakes on as well.

It is just a shame that the BBC have not been governed properly over the last 2-3 decades and they have tried to compete with other broadcasters and everything has been dumbed down accordingly...whereas, they should have improved their standards and let the programming "do the talking".

[This Side Up]

Re: TV Licence future

Why bother with the licence fee? Given that most households receive live tv, just pay for the BBC out of general taxation, at the negotiated rate times the number of propeties. There would be no need for separate collection, enforcement and administration of the fee. You might need a tweak to legislation to deal with overseas visitors in large hotels. As for telly in pubs, gyms, workplaces, etc., their clientele would for the most part be taxpayers anyway, so no special treatment needed.

[Richard 12]

Re: TV Licence future

Because then they become entirely beholden to the Government of the day.

At the moment it's just a disaster every time the Charter comes up for renewal, but at least that only happens roughly every other Parliament.

If the BBC were funded by general taxation, it would have to jump every time the Cabinet gets reshuffled. And do you really want the likes of Nadine Dorries or Rees-Mogg to have any input whatsoever into TV programming?

[gryphon]

Re: TV Licence future

Indeed. Private Eye are always very fond of quoting BBC management salaries.

Head of programming BBC - £350K

Head of programming BBC1 - £320K

Assistant deputy head of programming Radio 4 - £250K

Deputy assistant assistant head of programming Radio 4 - £200K

Laura Kuensberg i.e. actual “talent” - £150K

Obviously I’m pulling from vague recollections here but probably not too far off.

[anonymous boring coward]

Watching a movie on BBC iPlayer this new invention called “surround sound” is removed. And BBC was fooling around with 3D not long ago. Seems the don’t know what they are doing.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Click here to watch a message saying you can't watch

At least www.bbc.com stopped advertising programs to the world, showing a streaming player, and then telling the world it can't watch. Na na na na...na.

I just tried it now and the US variant of BBC links to BBC local channel guides. Still not helpful. Maybe I should have left a network TV tuner in the hotel on the last visit?

[G7mzh]

The BBC's problem is not copetition, but the idea of competition.

For years, the quality of BBC programmes has been dropping, because it feels is "must compete" with ITV and subscription services. Hence, we have the current race to the bottom with the schedules filled with game shows, junk auction shows, light-hearted (and light on content) pseudo-documentaries presented by "celebrities" instead of experts, and so forth. Just like the commercial channels.

The BBC needs to return to its core function and its core audience - people who actually appreciate quality content and have an attention span greater than a goldfish. I suspect people who dislike paying a licence fee to watch more of the same would happily do so for more of something different. Trying to imitate ITV isn't the way to go. If people want to watch endless soap operas, game shows and adverts, they can watch ITV &c. If they want to watch quality serious drama, documentaries, current affairs, religious output and so on, then they should be able to watch the BBC. Less of better should be the watchword, not more of not much.

As for Mr Davie forgetting what "broadcasting" means and wanting to turn the organisation into an ISP, despite this being against the wishes or needs of the vast majority of his audience, this is simply insane. Listen/watch again (or whatever they call it this week) is excellent, but as an add-on to the broadcast, not instead of.

[martinusher]

Not that innovative

"It bought you Monty Python and Jimi Hendrix"

Reluctantly. The Hendrix Top of the Pops session is probably one of the most glaring examples of "cultural divide". Monty Python only squeaked through by a lot of luck (and then became too popular to quietly 'X' after a limited season.

Large organizations don't do change very well. Its in their DNA.

[I should coco]

13 Quid a month for the BBC, if only everyone could have it

Compared to 90% of Netflix shite for a tenner 13 quid for the BBC is a bargain and I would happily pay that if I could have it. I do not live in the UK.

[bigtreeman]

ABC vs BBC

The ABC down here in Oz started their digital transformation back in 2006 with video podcasting and has grown with technology since then.

Good on you Aunty.