Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057489)

Accepting for the sake of argument that the BBC’s Royal Charter is not renewed in 2032, the organisation becomes a commercial broadcaster, free to choose how it raises revenue, and its public service obligation is reduced but not entirely withdrawn, then they could pursue the strategy you’ve outlined. I’d have thought it very unlikely that the public service obligation would be withdrawn from BBC1 and 2. That being the case they would still not be able to put these behind a paywall.

If you look at ITV as the BBC’s nearest analogy on terrestrial TV, only the main channel in epg position 3 is a public service channel that must be free to air. Yet ITV 2, 3 and 4, which are not public service channels, are also FTA. Their HD variants are behind Sky’s paywall on satellite but this has more to do with Sky’s willingness to pay broadcasters to keep HD channels off Freesat than any deliberate strategy to ‘sell’ their channels (Film 4 is paywalled on Sky for the same reason).

So while you could see a scenario where the BBC’s more niche stuff could be paywalled (and the public service obligation on those channels were withdrawn then they would be free to do that), the example of ITV suggests they wouldn’t. Also consider that all of the BBC’s output is geared towards mass audiences. Even the niche stuff on BBC4 is intended for that entire market segment, and not just those within that segment that are prepared to take out a subscription to Sky or VM. At least a third of the potential audience for BBC4 live in homes that don’t already have a pay tv service is significant. If they don’t have Sky already, are they likely to go and get it for BBC4? I’d say it’s unlikely.

Furthermore, at present every one of the BBC’s channels is designed around a public service requirement, and not a commercial one. So despite all of the above, it is unlikely that any of the BBC’s channels would continue in precisely the same form, in a commercial environment and without the public service obligation.

---------- Post added at 08:41 ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 ----------

These posts were split out of the Netflix/streaming services thread. Please continue discussion about the TV licence and the BBC Royal Charter renewal process here.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057489)

Accepting for the sake of argument that the BBC’s Royal Charter is not renewed in 2032, the organisation becomes a commercial broadcaster, free to choose how it raises revenue, and its public service obligation is reduced but not entirely withdrawn, then they could pursue the strategy you’ve outlined. I’d have thought it very unlikely that the public service obligation would be withdrawn from BBC1 and 2. That being the case they would still not be able to put these behind a paywall.

If you look at ITV as the BBC’s nearest analogy on terrestrial TV, only the main channel in epg position 3 is a public service channel that must be free to air. Yet ITV 2, 3 and 4, which are not public service channels, are also FTA. Their HD variants are behind Sky’s paywall on satellite but this has more to do with Sky’s willingness to pay broadcasters to keep HD channels off Freesat than any deliberate strategy to ‘sell’ their channels (Film 4 is paywalled on Sky for the same reason).

So while you could see a scenario where the BBC’s more niche stuff could be paywalled (and the public service obligation on those channels were withdrawn then they would be free to do that), the example of ITV suggests they wouldn’t. Also consider that all of the BBC’s output is geared towards mass audiences. Even the niche stuff on BBC4 is intended for that entire market segment, and not just those within that segment that are prepared to take out a subscription to Sky or VM. At least a third of the potential audience for BBC4 live in homes that don’t already have a pay tv service is significant. If they don’t have Sky already, are they likely to go and get it for BBC4? I’d say it’s unlikely.

Furthermore, at present every one of the BBC’s channels is designed around a public service requirement, and not a commercial one. So despite all of the above, it is unlikely that any of the BBC’s channels would continue in precisely the same form, in a commercial environment and without the public service obligation.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36057526)

I'm not a TV watcher, but obviously catch stuff when 'her indoors' is glued to it.

IMO if the beeb go subscription they'll lose out to those doing it for longer and probably better.

If they go down the adverts route, it will simply become awful programs shoved between 5 adverts every hour . . . and the radio will be the same, 2/3 of a song played after every 10 minutes of chatting.

Oh, and from a mans point of view there is lots of choice viewing on subscription platforms, but with women . . . Ant & Dec, the Soaps, and Celebrity shite are the winners . . so unless the BBC lower their standards they'll never compete :p:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36057529)

They never play Hotel California to the end now:mad:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36057550)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36057559)

Binding, or non-binding?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057513)

I think it's fair to say some Tory MPs are still banging on about a subscription model. The government isn't; in fact, Hugh posted a news report yesterday (Post 19 above) that demonstrates the Culture Secretary is asking 'how much'? with regards to the licence fee, not whether there should be one.

I think Guido Fawkes (who I mentioned yesterday) is also right in his assessment of the advisory panel set up to explore the future of public service broadcasting. There are senior industry figures who have expressed scepticism about the TV licence who could have been coopted onto that panel, but none of them were. It's filled with people who are more likely to assume that future public service broadcasting should continue to enjoy public funding in some way.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36057550)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36057998)

If the licence fee is renewed in 2022 (which it will be), what are the chances of the licence fee being abolished in 2032? Or at least, how many years notice ahead of 2032 would have tho be given for the BBC to prepare for things to change?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36058035)

I agree. On the Media Show last Wednesday, the Minister for Media (John Whittingdale) said that the BBC could not go subscription/encrypt until Freeview was closed down, which won't be for a long time yet.

It's here if anyone would like to listen to the interview:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p79h