Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the please-dont-adapt-anime dept.

BBC:

Video streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime now have more subscribers than traditional pay TV services in the UK, new data from Ofcom has revealed.

The media regulator says British TV will have to change the way it operates if it wants to compete with the internet giants.

Sharon White, Ofcom's chief executive, says: "We'd love to see broadcasters such as the BBC work collaboratively with ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 so that they have got that scale to compete globally, making shows together, co-producing great shows that all of us can watch.

"I think it would be great to see a British Netflix."

BrexitFlix?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:03PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:03PM (#709384) Journal

    When I first heard about the "television license" and "television detector vans" in college, I thought what an amazingly stupid idea. But I didn't have any better idea at the time.

    If over the air transmissions would just go away and be replaced by internet streaming, then the whole license and revenue problem takes care of itself. Use those airwaves (eg that part of the spectrum) for new mobile phone frequencies, which probably have better in-building penetration than the GHz club.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:21PM (1 child)

    by theluggage (1797) on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:21PM (#709464)

    then the whole license and revenue problem takes care of itself.

    Its was never just about license and revenue - it was about ensuring quality and diversity of TV content and impartiality of news - at a time when making and broadcasting TV was hugely expensive and limited terrestrial analogue airspace meant that there was never going to be a wide enough choice of suppliers to ensure competition. The BBC may be a billion miles from perfect, but they are vastly more accountable than any commercial broadcaster, don't have to chase ratings to maximise subscription/ad revenue and they were carefully set up to be as independent of government as possible, unlike the typical "state broadcaster". It was a good idea that worked well for decades - but you may be right that the time has passed, with the advent of the modern internet and the consequent difficulty of charging a levy on "TV receiving equipment" without it turning into a general "internet tax".

    • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:22PM

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:22PM (#709602)

      Don't forget that the license predates the television: the BBC of the 1920s was funded by a licensing of radio sets. (Battery powered sets were exempt IIRC.) In 1946 the new TV license also covered radio usage at the same property, and the separate radio license was done away with in the 1970s.

  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:49PM (1 child)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:49PM (#709623) Homepage Journal

    In the states, broadcast TV is paid for by advertising. No broadcast TV here. All you need is an old second hand television that a poor person could afford, no payment to an ISP, the government, or anyone else.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org