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?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:56AM (8 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:26AM (6 children)
This is not how I read:
Specifically, I miss the point where they would be "complaining". Care to show it to me? Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:45AM (5 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:12AM (4 children)
It's only implied if you want to read that into it. In other words, that for you it is implied tells more about you than about the one who made the statement.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:20AM (2 children)
I will spell it out once for you retards. (Apologies to real retards, I know you're much better than this.)
The TV tax applies to broadcast TV. And BBC rebroadcasts anywhere.
It doesn't apply to UK resident watching TV from any other country in the world, online.
Yes, the buggy makers think Ford is unfair. Moderators who are not genuinely mentally retarded, but simulate it in an offensive manner, should be made to pay appropriately.
Can we livestream it?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:15AM
Adik, you are being extra dickish today (no, that's not a compliment). So either start acting like less of a dick, or go get yourself some more dick, because whatever you're doing at the moment is definitely the wrong measure.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @06:28PM
Ok, let me dig out my paper copy of the TV license....
From the About your TV License box
So, as long as it's only foreign catch-up TV then you're correct, otherwise they still want their pound of flesh.
NB, the TV license isn't about traditional (RF) receivers anymore 'desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones, tablets!..oh my!'
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:22AM
"Mommy, mommy! There's a monster in my closet!"
"Oh, shush. There's no such thing as monsters. Let me prove it to you."
Following the exchange with her son, the mother got up off of the boy's bed and walked over to the closet. The woman then opened the accordion-style closet door about halfway, and stopped. Just as she was about to turn around and smile at her son, a hand reached out of the closet, grabbed her throat, and quickly pulled her in. After this, the closet door slammed shut.
Then came the screaming. Oh, did she scream. The mother screamed so loud that it pierced one's eardrums. This was accompanied by loud bangs and slams, moans of pleasure, and flesh slapping against flesh. The closet door was shaking so violently that it seemed as if it would fall right off. And the boy just stared blankly at the door. Even though he should have run away, he was paralyzed by terror and despair, and so he simply stared. Suddenly, a loud thud was heard, and everything went silent. Total silence.
However, that silence was short-lived; the closet door soon opened partway, and someone's upper body leaned out from within. It... was a man. It was an obese man with beady little black eyes and a smile on his face. Oh, what a smile. Oh, what a horrifying smile it was. As the man exited the closet and crept towards the bed, the little boy simply stared at the nightmarish figure before him. Yes, there was no chance of escape, anyway...
"Night-night!" said the man, as he gently tucked them into bed. To him, seeing them sleep so soundly together was truly heartwarming. The man left the house with a genuine smile on his face, never to return.
Several months later, a mother and her son would be found lying on a bed together. They lived together, they slept together, and now they rotted together.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:40PM
There's Pluto TV, it was a highlighted app on my TV, Hundreds of channels, and combined with OTA TV (with its 3-4 times as many channels as when TV was analog) it makes cable completely obsolete. I'd say it's a bigger threat to the BBC than Netflix (although with the deterioration of all the cable channels since 1980, it alone is a threat to cable).
Cable TV is obsolete. I have an upcoming article about that.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:01AM (5 children)
> We'd love to see broadcasters such as the BBC work collaboratively with ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5
Note the concept of a single British internet site for British TV (i.e. a Britflix) was explicitly banned by the uk government about 10 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:17AM
So you're saying that someone guaranteed consumers would have a choice of more than one source of TV?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:45PM
That may have been a show stopper 10 years ago, but we have Netflix and Amazon Prime in the UK producing and streaming some very British formats (e.g., the crown or the grand tour), so that obstacle ought to be out of the way.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:44PM (2 children)
I don't know why the BBC doesn't just stream by itself.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday July 20 2018, @08:56AM (1 child)
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or are not from UK. They have a big streaming thing, bbc.co.uk/iplayer. I use it every day. You can stream tv and radio.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday July 20 2018, @05:23PM
Ignorance, not sarcasm. All I know about Britain is what I read about it.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:09AM (22 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:37AM (4 children)
Well, they refer to something that is at the same time traditional TV (as opposed to internet streaming) and pay TV (as opposed to free-to-air TV). What expression would you use for that?
Also, TV as such is only a couple of decades old (I'm pretty sure there was no TV 100 years ago), so “traditional” is to be seen relative to that time span.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:57AM (3 children)
What does that even mean? If you're pretty sure, the historical facts [wikipedia.org] don't matter?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:19AM (2 children)
From that very page:
I'm absolutely sure that 1926 is later than 1918.
That people experimented with image transmission before does not mean that TV existed back then. Even though they had experimental devices that did part of what TV does.
It's like claiming that we already have fusion power because there exist several fusion research facilities around the world. Oh, and we already had successful tests of large-scale fusion power generation in the form of thermonuclear bombs …
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:31AM (1 child)
92 years is 100 years in common parlance. Mere decades (your claim) would be twenty to thirty years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:33PM
goalpost moving is fun weeeeee
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by c0lo on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:38AM (2 children)
Really? I thought that, in the context, 'traditional' was referring the times of Charles Ilnd, after Cromwell banned Christmas. You know? The Merry Monarch, putting up a reality show on the expense of his subjects.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:56AM
Blimey, as a Greek, I know that there must be an English tune that goes with this: https://youtu.be/Dvp4fZyhZZ8 [youtu.be]
"It's my only line!"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:29PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:56AM (13 children)
The practice of sending around 'inspectors' who pretend to more authority than they have and are trained to bluff and bully anyone who owns a tv into paying the tax contradicts that in spirit, but not in letter. If you admit you watched BBC once, you're on the hook for their tax. And you're also a bloody idiot. If you learn your lesson from that it was cheap. Never tell a government employee anything, and tell subcontractors even less whenever possible. So many people get in so much trouble because of their inability to simply say "no" without any sort of continuation. No means no. K to the N to the OW spells KNOW.
Again, I am not a barrister, let alone your barrister. But if I were a UK resident I'm pretty sure I would have sent at least two of these poor fellows to the hospital, before I learned to empathize. Possibly another couple after, but only if they were very poorly behaved.
Look, anyone can come up to you at any time and ask for money, or for an admission of a crime. You're the fool if you give it to them, or expect your schooling to have been anything but sabotage. Just say 'no.' To any agent of any government that wants your consent for anything. Period.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:02AM (11 children)
Effectively it's a tax on receiving equipment [tvlicensing.co.uk] since it applies to all broadcast TV.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:16AM (10 children)
Prove I'm wrong.
No, you may not enter my house. Yes, I'll break your jaw if you try. And then I'll call the REAL Bobbies and press charges.
Any more questions? Good.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:39AM (9 children)
You can do that, they'll get a warrant. I genuinely do not watch TV, I'd be more interested to hear what I could possibly be interested in watching.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:57AM (8 children)
A warrant? Really?
Under what pretext? Issued by what court?
Can you point me to a single relevant precedent or instance?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @10:21AM (7 children)
Many. [licencefree.co.uk] They can force their way in but don't as they fear the public outcry. [crimebodge.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @10:41AM (6 children)
So from your link, warrants are sometimes being issued when they should not.
Still, they're quite limited in scope.
So, let me elaborate my script ever so slightly.
"No, I haven't watched broadcast tv on my own equipment for over 10 years."
"No, you may not enter my house, nor my property. Not without a warrant. Tis a nation of law after all."
"Oh, you, have a warrant do you? Let me see that."
(I'll point out at this point, for the benefit of some possible readers, that unlike in the USA they are still expected to show you the warrant and give you a reasonable opportunity to read it rather than just shooting you in the face. I don't often give the old country props, because it doesn't often deserve it, but I'll happily go on record as saying that in this particular respect they are doing it right. At least part of the time.)
"OK, let me see your ID."
If there is anything obviously wrong with the ID, I deny him entrance and call the cops, er, bobbies. If he tries to force the issue I hit him good and hard with something heavy and wait for the bobbies. If he isn't suicidal he waits for them.
"OK, show me the warrant."
Again, for the benefit of my friends and neighbors, this doesn't actually get you designated KOS by the national guard in the motherland. Though they are absolute unconscionable DICKS about my sporting arms. I'm not sure I can give any net points here.
Moving on...
Ok, this jackass actually has a warrant, and showed it to you, and you couldn't see anything obviously wrong with it. Don't panic! Tell him your lawyer^wbarrister needs to look at it. Make some phone calls. Tell him to come back next week. See if you can't provoke him into assaulting you. Preferably in front of your camera.
Worst case, let him in. If you're not an absolute idiot, there's nothing in the world in plain sight that will prove his case anyway.
If even 10% of the male public cared about the general welfare enough to do their part when their time came... there would be no one left willing to even attempt to do 'inspections' for these sons of bitches.
"Dying ain't much of a living, boy."
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by c0lo on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:14PM (2 children)
And all of this circus, for what?
£150.50 [wikipedia.org] which is 0.6% [wikipedia.org] of the post tax median annual income in 2014? You reckon the lawyer will come cheaper?
Get a life, man, and stop drinking cheap booze. You sound like a deranged US libertarian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:21PM
150 pounds is 300 bucks, which is not insignificant. I'd throw the TV out the window before I put up with that. Some things you can't do without, but TV is not one of them. So holding on to it and thereby enabling petty tyranny is inexcusable.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:50PM
These are private citizens, poorly trained and not properly overseen, going around bullying people into doing things they don't have any obligation to do, in order to extract rent they are not entitled to, often from people so poor that paying it means a real hardship. No one respects that, and no one should respect that.
Any and every decent person in the country will monkeywrench them, one way or another. That's just how it works in a healthy society - we don't tolerate bullies, not everyone has to confront them head on but everyone in the block WILL work together to support whoever does. When we're the targets of bullying, we resist. When it's that nice old lady next door, or old Joe that came back from Korea with no legs, well then we start to really get angry.
Quit being so myopic. Not everything has to be justified in terms of short term individual gain. Sometimes we take on extra work, for the benefit of the community.
If you sent one of these 'inspectors' around over here, he'd be quickly surrounded by community watch and asked to leave.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:29PM
Hey, it's almost like we're back in the U.S.! :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:24PM (1 child)
Sorry, but here's the SOP re the men from Crapita and their warrants.
If it has gotten to the warrant stage, then they'll show up with the police, present you with the warrant, and the police are there to make sure that the men from Crapita are allowed to execute the warrant, if you physically interfere, then they (the police) might arrest you under the good old 'breach of the peace' catch-all, yes, the indications are that if you still refuse them entry then they'll go away, but they can legally force entry to your property armed with the warrant.
'(6) A person authorised by the BBC, or by OFCOM, to exercise a power conferred by a warrant under this section may (if necessary) use such force as may be reasonable in the exercise of that power.'
The warrant allows for them to inspect all TV receiving equipment, bear in mind the definition of what that now means ' TVs, desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, digital boxes, DVD, Blu-ray and VHS recorders, or anything else.'
Let that sink in, especially the '..or anything else.'.
The warrant, issued under Section 366 of The Communications Act 2003 [legislation.gov.uk]. allows them to
(2) A warrant under this section is a warrant authorising any one or more persons authorised for the purpose by the BBC or by OFCOM—
- (a) to enter the premises or vehicle at any time (either alone or in the company of one or more constables); and
- (b) to search the premises or vehicle and examine and test any television receiver found there.
If you refuse to give them assistance
(7) Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty—
- (a) of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and
- (b) in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched,
to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.
(8) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
- (a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of any power conferred on that person by virtue of a warrant under this section; or
- (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to give any assistance that he is under a duty to give by virtue of subsection (7).
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (8) shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
Now, I don't know if refusing to give the men from Crapita passwords to allow them to access you computer equipment would be an arrestable offence, the police would probably do nowt if you've been polite etc. , but you never know.
I should point out here that a level 5 fine on the standard scale is now potentially unlimited (as of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Section 85)...
Yes, they're fuckwits, but fuckwits with the law on their side (the worst kind of fuckwits)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:35PM
This is exactly the sort of tyranny that civil disobedience works best against.
Peaceful resistance. Refusal to cooperate. If one person in 10 took that path, the whole thing would become so unprofitable it would be abandoned.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:37PM
If all you want to do is watch your old home videos that you've converted to VHS, then you need to pay the tax unless you get both the RF receivers in the VCR and the TV removed (at your expense) and also have those procedured certified (also at your expense).
That's why I call it a tax, it's practically unavoidable. The blind get a discount, big deal.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Redundant) by c0lo on Thursday July 19 2018, @08:45AM (2 children)
BrexitFlix? Really? A streaming service specialised in a narrow niche of tragicomedy?
What are the chances of a sizeable and stable audience? Oh, sorry, my bad. I forgot they will have a captive audience.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:23AM
That's no way to talk about the EU, especially given Mr Junker's struggle with "sciatica". [euobserver.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:59AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:55AM (3 children)
Or why not work with Netflix, Amazon and international companies that aren't your immediate competitor on co-productions... which is already happening.
Off the top of my head, the forthcoming Good Omens is a BBC/Amazon co-production, "Electric Dreams" (a.k.a. "whoops, we shouldn't have let Netflix take over Black Mirror") is Channel 4/Amazon - meanwhile BBC shows are all over Netflix for which BBC is presumably getting paid...
(although I'd be interested to know why I had to go to Netflix to watch the final season of Orphan Black, a BBC America production that the BBC seemed bizarrely reluctant to promote in the UK - sounds like a case of "not invented here")
Frankly, though, although its nice to have the BBC as a differently-biassed source of news that is still less bad than the alternatives, I no longer see a case for the TV license in terms of drama/entertainment, with the likes of HBO, Netflix and Amazon turning out high-production-value shows which are often part-produced by UK talent (e.g. GoT) and providing ad-free subscription services on which to watch them. The TV license as a ring-fenced tax on TV equipment is already living on borrowed time in the internet age and I don't trust the current bunch of cockwombles running the country to "modernise" it without turning it into another general tax that vanishes into the treasury's bottomless pit and faux-privatising the BBC (i.e. some big services company gets the assets and the taxpayer keeps the liabilities).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:14PM (2 children)
"less bad" is the operative part of that phrase. They have grown worse, to my eye. They have begun to synchronize with the worst impulses of the American MSM. I have retreated to Der Spiegel, because they are not yet obsessed with the same nonsense as English-language media.
I don't know how English-language journalism ever comes back. The real newsmen, with ethics and standards, were let go 20 years ago and no one with integrity remains to teach the younglings how to do it properly. It's a regular occurrence now that pieces from major outlets are full of typos and bad grammar. It's commonly done that reporters slap new headlines on corporate press releases and pass them off as their own. Nobody does original research or investigation any more.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:40PM (1 child)
Der Spiegel is now full with the same anti Trump, Russia, Turkey, Polish, Hungarian pro Hillary(Soros?) junk as the Bezos Post. I just read the comments now, but there are tons of propaganda comments in there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 20 2018, @03:53AM
Add anti-Italian propaganda to the list, since the new Italian government has stopped accepting "refugees".
I don't know what happened to German media. You used to be able to count on tough investigative reporting, and a critical attitude to incumbent politicians. Now in the 14th year of Mommy Merkel's reign, they sling the same innuendo against Trump that CNN has aired, run a "your masters know best" line belittling democracy by characterizing policies that the people actually want as "populism", trash their Russian gas supplier, call for an escalation of the war in Syria (though they seemed to have toned that down recently). In short, they take the positions that the losing side in the US has chosen.
Some may say they are trying to form society to prevent the AfD from getting elected, but that is not what journalism is there for.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:03PM (4 children)
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.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:21PM (1 child)
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
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)
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
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday July 19 2018, @09:59PM
OOPS, that should have read "no broadcast LICENSE here.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:05PM (1 child)
BBC produces some seriously good programs. Their nature specials are renowned, but there are lots of other good offerings as well. We probably watch more BBC than we do Swiss television (we live in Switzerland). We would happily pay for access to some of the UK-only features and content. From what I've seen online, there are a lot of people - both British expats and others - who feel the same way.
BBC invests a lot of time and effort in blacklisting VPN addresses, but they can't be bothered to find a way to make paid international access possible. It's apparently a political problem - something in their charter needs changed, before they are allowed to fix this.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday July 19 2018, @03:56PM
There's nothing "odd" about the BBC in that respect: Like any other broadcaster, they sell their shows to other broadcasters/distributors around the world for serious money and you only get to see what your local broadcaster chooses to buy. In the UK, you don't get to see a US (or Swiss, for that matter) show unless a UK broadcaster or streamer licenses it. Even with Netflix/Amazon etc. you only legitimately get the local version of that service, which only carries the shows that they choose to release in your country.
Even in the UK, the BBC streaming service, iPlayer, doesn't carry everything forever - much of it is only available for a few weeks after broadcast. After that, you'll have to buy a DVD or hope that Netflix or someone picks it up (there's a ton of BBC shows on Netflix UK).
But that's the international TV industry in general, nothing to do withe the BBC.