On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:30:59 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

[...]
>> I think it may not be constitutionally possible for the funding of the
>> BBC to change until the royal charter expires in 2027, regardless of
>> what anybody thinks, and I'm sure the BBC wouldn't want it to anyway.
>
>I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
>arrangements. And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the BBC
>offering such a service in addition to its current services. I don't
>see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be the vehicle
>through which it was offered).

I'm not aware of any such thing either. I think it would be an
excellent idea if the BBC offered an online subscription service in
addition to its current services.

As long as they didn't expect payment for it in addition to the the
payment we make for its current services. One or the other, not both.

A good combination would be free to air broadcasts plus a paid online
subscription service of some sort, and it would be up to the BBC to
decide what to put on the subscription service to make it worth paying
for, but if I were obliged to pay for a licence *and* a subscription
to watch online I wouldn't be interested at all.

Rod.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:51:05 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 21/09/2023 20:32, Robin wrote:
>> The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK what
>> it broadcasts within.
>
>
>And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
>will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).
>
>What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
>watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any subscription
>scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's competitors /
>enemies.
>

There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

A fairer system would be for all of it to be supported by subscription
*instead* of the licence, and for the subscription service to be
available wherever people want it, just like Amazon, Netflix, Disney,
and all the others.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:51:05 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 21/09/2023 20:32, Robin wrote:
>>> The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK what
>>> it broadcasts within.
>>
>>
>> And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
>> will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the floor!).
>>
>> What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
>> watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any subscription
>> scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's competitors /
>> enemies.
>>
>
> There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
> means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
> material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
> for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
> and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
> certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.
>
> A fairer system would be for all of it to be supported by subscription
> *instead* of the licence, and for the subscription service to be
> available wherever people want it, just like Amazon, Netflix, Disney,
> and all the others.
>
> Rod.
>

I think the streaming suppliers you mention all provide different programme
availability depending on geography. The only thing they have that is
common world wide is the name.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
> means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
> material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
> for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
> and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
> certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

This kind of happens with BBC programmes that appear on the streaming
services anyway. As they were free to watch in the UK on BBC1 but people
overseas need to pay for a Netflix/Disney+ subscription to watch them...
it's just not a BBC run streaming service. (Of course, those services pay
the BBC for the overseas streaming rights to those shows.)

> A fairer system would be for all of it to be supported by subscription
> instead of the licence, and for the subscription service to be
> available wherever people want it, just like Amazon, Netflix, Disney,
> and all the others.

Fairer system on paper, yes. However, Grumpy Curmudgeon from Tunbridge
Wells, Karen Angry from Ascot and Mr Bigglesworth from Co. Durham would
surely be sending letters of complaint to The Times over having to pay
for something that was always free!

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 11:36:32 +0200, "Blueshirt"
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

>> There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
>> means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
>> material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
>> for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
>> and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
>> certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.
>
>This kind of happens with BBC programmes that appear on the streaming
>services anyway. As they were free to watch in the UK on BBC1 but people
>overseas need to pay for a Netflix/Disney+ subscription to watch them...
>it's just not a BBC run streaming service. (Of course, those services pay
>the BBC for the overseas streaming rights to those shows.)

You need a licence to watch anything on iPlayer, either 'live' or
catchup, so it's not free. You can watch catchup programmes on the
other broadcasters' online services without a licence, but iPlayer is
the exception.

Rod.

In article <uejdgo$2gqi$2@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 21/09/2023 20:32, Robin wrote:
> > The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK
> > what it broadcasts within.

> And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
> will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the
> floor!).

> What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
> watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any
> subscription scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's
> competitors / enemies.

Drifting OT for the thread, but:

I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC should
have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who *have* a
license to also be able to access it when spending some time outwith the
UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of the UK for
decades, so don't know.

IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes abroad
for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem reasonable for
them to be allowed to run a service for this under their own brand, then
using the income to benefit making programmes.

JIm

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 24/09/2023 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC
> should have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who
> *have* a license to also be able to access it when spending some time
> outwith the UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of
> the UK for decades, so don't know.

A ex-British friend lives in the USA, he bought a TV Licence using his
sister's UK address and can watch BBC programmes online.

On 24/09/2023 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <uejdgo$2gqi$2@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 21/09/2023 20:32, Robin wrote:
>>> The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK
>>> what it broadcasts within.
>
>
>> And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
>> will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the
>> floor!).
>
>> What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
>> watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any
>> subscription scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's
>> competitors / enemies.
>
> Drifting OT for the thread, but:
>
> I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC should
> have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who *have* a
> license to also be able to access it when spending some time outwith the
> UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of the UK for
> decades, so don't know.
>

In general not possible. Like many I do watch BBC TV in Spain via a VPN
that routes back via my UK setup. Not sure if this is in any sense
illegal as you can only buy a TV licence in the UK.

> IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes abroad
> for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem reasonable for
> them to be allowed to run a service for this under their own brand, then
> using the income to benefit making programmes.
>

The problem isn't BBC generated, its content they buy from elsewhere.
The owners of that would be very unhappy if the BBC showed elsewhere...

> JIm
>

Dave

On 21/09/2023 20:30, Robin wrote:

> I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
> arrangements.  And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the BBC
> offering such a service in addition to its current services.  I don't
> see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be the vehicle
> through which it was offered).

There's an additional problem with UK channels, that the programmes are
in English, which makes them attractive overseas, particularly where
English is widely understood (Scandinavia for instance).

It distorts the market place for domestic broadcasters in those
countries, because they have bought the rights to show UK and US content
too.

Actually, English comprehension is so good in Norway, I watched a UK
programme on NRK, and it was without subtitles. You were given a choice
of optional English or Norwegian subs

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 20/09/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
> freeview might be in the sights next.

Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
receivers are now HD ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote:

> On 20/09/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
> > Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd
> > suspect freeview might be in the sights next.
>
> Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
> receivers are now HD ?

I didn't even know the BBC bothered with an SD version of BBC1 until this
thread!

Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/09/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
>> freeview might be in the sights next.
>
> Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
> receivers are now HD ?
>

Mutter mutter, still sore that my 405 line TV receives no signal. Throwing
away a perfectly good TV, who needs this colour stuff? Don’t see the point
of these extra lines, mutter mutter….l

On 24/09/2023 16:22, Tweed wrote:
> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/09/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
>>> freeview might be in the sights next.
>>
>> Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
>> receivers are now HD ?
>
> Mutter mutter, still sore that my 405 line TV receives no signal. Throwing
> away a perfectly good TV, who needs this colour stuff? Don’t see the point
> of these extra lines, mutter mutter….l

Mutter mutter, why do you need a new-fangled picture? I was always
happy with my long-wave radio!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 24/09/2023 16:22, Tweed wrote:
>> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 20/09/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>> Is this due to cost cutting again. If that is the case then I'd suspect
>>>> freeview might be in the sights next.
>>>
>>> Why would you transmit satellite channels in SD, when 95% plus of the
>>> receivers are now HD ?
>>
>> Mutter mutter, still sore that my 405 line TV receives no signal. Throwing
>> away a perfectly good TV, who needs this colour stuff? Don’t see the point
>> of these extra lines, mutter mutter….l
>
> Mutter mutter, why do you need a new-fangled picture? I was always
> happy with my long-wave radio!
>

..... . .-. . / .. ... / - .... . / -. . .-- ...

On 24/09/2023 15:01, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 21/09/2023 20:30, Robin wrote:
>
>> I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
>> arrangements.  And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the BBC
>> offering such a service in addition to its current services.  I don't
>> see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be the vehicle
>> through which it was offered).
>
>
> There's an additional problem with UK channels, that the programmes are
> in English, which makes them attractive overseas, particularly where
> English is widely understood (Scandinavia for instance).
>
> It distorts the market place for domestic broadcasters in those
> countries, because they have bought the rights to show UK and US content
> too.
>
> Actually, English comprehension is so good in Norway, I watched a UK
> programme on NRK, and it was without subtitles. You were given a choice
> of optional English or Norwegian subs
>

In Spain many programs are broadcast with both dubbed Spanish and
original English/American audio.

Dave

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:37:27 +0100
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

> On 24/09/2023 15:01, Mark Carver wrote:
> > On 21/09/2023 20:30, Robin wrote:
> >
> >> I did not say anything about /replacing/ the current funding
> >> arrangements.  And I'm not aware of anything which prevents the
> >> BBC offering such a service in addition to its current services.
> >> I don't see it as different in kind from BBC World (which might be
> >> the vehicle through which it was offered).
> >
> >
> > There's an additional problem with UK channels, that the programmes
> > are in English, which makes them attractive overseas, particularly
> > where English is widely understood (Scandinavia for instance).
> >
> > It distorts the market place for domestic broadcasters in those
> > countries, because they have bought the rights to show UK and US
> > content too.
> >
> > Actually, English comprehension is so good in Norway, I watched a
> > UK programme on NRK, and it was without subtitles. You were given a
> > choice of optional English or Norwegian subs
> >
>
> In Spain many programs are broadcast with both dubbed Spanish and
> original English/American audio.
>
> Dave

In Portugal I once watched a French police series, starring Yves
Montand, with the original French soundtrack, and with French subtitles.
I could only imagine what the Portuguese viewers thought.

--
Davey.

On 24/09/2023 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <uejdgo$2gqi$2@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 21/09/2023 20:32, Robin wrote:
>>> The BBC does not always have the right to broadcast outside the UK
>>> what it broadcasts within.
>
>
>> And will have to pay more for the rights to show worldwide, the 'talent'
>> will also all want more money (probably even the man who sweeps the
>> floor!).
>
>> What is the betting that many who have been bragging about being able to
>> watch BBC without a licence will be finding ways around any
>> subscription scheme - perhaps encouraged / assisted again by the BBC's
>> competitors / enemies.
>
> Drifting OT for the thread, but:
>
> I am a fan of the License Fee in general. But do think that the BBC should
> have a sensible mechanism for cases like, e.g., UK residents who *have* a
> license to also be able to access it when spending some time outwith the
> UK. Maybe this is already possible, but I've not been out of the UK for
> decades, so don't know.
>
> IIUC the BBC already can make income from selling its own programmes abroad
> for other broadcasters to then show. If so, it would seem reasonable for
> them to be allowed to run a service for this under their own brand, then
> using the income to benefit making programmes.

Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to show
them for a limited number of times in the UK.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 22:45:18 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

>Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
>They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
>licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to show
>them for a limited number of times in the UK.

It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
does it do these days? I have a mental image of an office somewhere
with 'BBC' on the door and a lot of accountants just shuffling money.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 22:45:18 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
>> They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
>> licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to show
>> them for a limited number of times in the UK.
>
> It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
> been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
> sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
> prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
> makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
> does it do these days? I have a mental image of an office somewhere
> with 'BBC' on the door and a lot of accountants just shuffling money.
>
> Rod.
>

The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
for itself and for other broadcasters.

In article <uerk81$1rg9l$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 22:45:18 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Do the BBC actually make many programmes these days that can be sold?
> >> They appear to commission programmes from third parties using the
> >> licence money but then not to own the rights, or only the rights to
> >> show them for a limited number of times in the UK.
> >
> > It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
> > been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
> > sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
> > prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
> > makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
> > does it do these days? I have a mental image of an office somewhere
> > with 'BBC' on the door and a lot of accountants just shuffling money.
> >
> > Rod.
> >

> The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
> for itself and for other broadcasters.

in particular: Eastenders

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
> been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
> sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
> prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
> makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
> does it do these days?

The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>The BBC makes a lot of programmes via its commercial arm BBC studios, both
>for itself and for other broadcasters.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that 'BBC Studios' is a
completely separate commercial company that isn't part of the BBC at
all, but simply sells the programmes it makes to the BBC itself. The
name is chosen deliberately to give the impression that it's part of
the same organisation, but it isn't. It could continue on its own if
the BBC closed down tomorrow, by selling its programmes elsewhere.

Rod.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 16:31:35 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:19:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't look like it. Most of the drama programmes appear to have
>> been made by other production companies, who would presumably just
>> sell their wares to other outlets if the BBC ceased to exist. Which
>> prompts me to wonder why the BBC does still exist. If it no longer
>> makes the programmes and no longer actually broadcasts them, then what
>> does it do these days?
>
>The same applies to Channel 4, and always has done, but you
>conveniently ignore that to push your agenda.

I'm not ignoring Channel 4. It's simply not relevant to what I was
talking about. I don't have to pay a licence to Channel 4 to watch
either its programmes or anybody else's. There has never been any
suggestion that Channel 4 is some sort of public service that we
should all pay for whether we want it or not.

Rod.

In article <hq7tgil9irfr76fge3j1nvk3umrc598dgu@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
> means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
> material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
> for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
> and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
> certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.

Curious when the same people tend not to complain when large media corps
sell their wares country by country and get whatever they can squeeze out
of clients.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Tue, 26 Sep 23 09:15:03 UTC, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <hq7tgil9irfr76fge3j1nvk3umrc598dgu@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> There's also the objection that if BBC material was shown overseas by
>> means of a paid subscription, overseas viewers would be paying for
>> material that had already been paid for by UK viewers who have to pay
>> for a licence. In other words, the BBC would be charging for it twice,
>> and many think it is expensive enough already. A BBC licence is
>> certainly more expensive than any of the streaming services I use.
>
>Curious when the same people tend not to complain when large media corps
>sell their wares country by country and get whatever they can squeeze out
>of clients.
>
>Jim

The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.

Rod.