That’s not entirely fair IMO. The BBC already had deals with ITV and Channel 4 to put their content on the new Project Kangaroo service before it was killed off.
It's fair because there's an underlying competitive issue: if said new project represented in any way a threat to those other entities, they would not, or stop providing the content.
For example, Disney has pulled their content from Netflix.
The wider context here is that ministers have been arguing that the BBC is behind the times, because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now. Not only that, but an annual subscription to Netflix is cheaper than the BBC licence fee.
The BBC have responded by pointing out that government regulators killed off their attempt to work with competitors to produce such a service over a decade ago (Project Kangaroo), and now they’re being criticised by government for not being one.
I used to work at the ABC (the aussie version of BBC). We have a pretty good streaming service called iview. It started ahead of the curve, 2 years before Netflix started its streaming service.
While I wasn't there at the time, stories have been that iView faced government queries at the time for "wasting money" (and after sometime, the govt relented and funded it in 2013). This back and forth went on and on until today.
Now, of course, the stories in the media is whether or not we should impose a quota on Australian content on external streaming services. All I can do is give that Annoyed Picard reaction.
The BBC have responded by pointing out that government regulators killed off their attempt to work with competitors to produce such a service over a decade ago (Project Kangaroo), and now they’re being criticised by government for not being one.
I don't think they're being criticised by government for not being a Netflix-style VOD service. The debate is as to whether they should be funded by the licence fee with all the restrictions that come with it to allow competition in the market vs. letting them do their own thing without the licence fee. The government do appear to be coming down on the side against the licence fee, but that could just be a negotiating position, at least for the foreseeable.
No one as far as I can see is making the argument that a licence fee funded broadcaster should have taken that money and used it to launch a Netflix competitor.
They've certainly been criticised for not "attracting and retaining younger audiences" who are "increasingly turning to subscription on demand services, such as Netflix" [1] which don't need TV licenses.
Of course, a Rupert Murdoch type who wanted to shut down the BBC would argue that low viewing figures prove the injustice of forcing people to pay for a service they don't use, and therefore the justice of privatising; while high viewing figures prove the viability of the BBC as a subscription service, and therefore the viability of privatising.
Which is a crazy argument because iPlayer was ahead of the times for years before Netflix became a mainstream choice in UK households. Hell, the 2012 coverage of the London Olympics was still some of the best coverage I ever remember seeing of a sporting event.
It's a bad argument for another reason. In 2009 there was a totally different government in power. It's weird to blame politicians today for decisions made by the opposing party over a decade ago.
The BBC's problem is not iPlayer vs Netflix. It's that they aren't producing enough compelling content anymore to justify the tax that funds them. Additionally they keep angering ministers, who think they're biased and out of touch.
While I largely agree, I would attribute most of the BBC's issues down to simple budget cuts. A world-leading organisation had its funding reduced, and was eaten from the inside by those put in charge by the government.
The government has always wanted to control the state broadcaster, and a decade ago people would've fought tooth and nail to keep the BBÇ alive. The decline in quality has been slow, but obvious from all sides, from sport coverage, to factual output, and most notably from the news and political front. Those people that would've fought for the BBC years ago are now those that want its funding removed entirely, and in my opinion it's a master-class in control from the Tories. The left have been played hard by the BBC.
You're absolutely right in that it's not an iPlayer vs Netflix debate. It's an output issue, and that output has been eroded over 5-10 years.
The over 75s grant has been cut a little bit but the actual gross revenues are higher now than they used to be. Funding isn't the BBCs problem. It is able to tax a growing population - that's the definition of increasing revenues. With billions of pounds to splash around it's really hard for them to plead poverty.
The bigger issue is they produce a lot of content but it's increasingly narrowly targeted to, basically, the sort of thing Lib Dem voters in London like (and think other people should like). That's a small minority of the population.
I think this needs to be considered in more detail, because those numbers are different than the accounts published by the BBC, and one of the ways there were cuts was having more things added to the responsibilities. For example, the BBC wasn't paying £75M/year for S4C before, but it is now.
I'm also not quite sure on the over 75s licenses being marked as "cut a little bit"
> The compensation paid to the BBC by government for the current 4.55 million free TV licences (introduced in 2000) is being phased out in three steps – falling from £655m in 2017-18 to £468m in 2018-19 and a final £247m payment in 2019-20. At that point, the value of the free licences could be £725m.
That's huge drop unless those numbers have changed, but even the plan of charging some for the license put the figure at near £250M. Combined with the S4C change that's, what, over 10% of your figure as a cut without converting to real terms.
Alright. I didn't know about S4C. I agree that moving things around between different budgets can result in what feels like 'cuts' to the BBC although, normally departments don't consider enlargement to be a cut exactly :)
I had a bit of a rant on HN the other day about this practice in the UK of describing the public sector as being 'cut' when graphs of their budget are going up and to the right. People do it a lot with the NHS and it distorts the political debate, in my mind, because of course people hear the word "cut" and think the amount of available money is going down when it's actually going up.
The loss of the money for the over-75s is a real cut. But so far it hasn't counter-balanced the increase in revenue from general population growth, or at least that's how I interpret the graphs on the page I linked to, which are going up and to the right. Additionally the BBC spends considerably more than it gets in license fee, I assume that's based on commercial revenues as (AFAIK) the BBC doesn't take out loans or get into debt. When those revenues are also considered its expenditure has been growing steadily since 2011.
Tony Hall's argument is basically that Amazon/Netflix can outspend them. Well yeah, but Netflix is a temporary phenomenon given their enormous burn rates and the spending of Amazon/Apple is somewhat calibrated towards matching it. I'm not convinced those levels of spending on content will last forever, myself. But also the BBC is allowed to sell its programs internationally, just like Netflix and Amazon do. It generates significant revenues from that as the graphs show. What stops them competing with these firms, exactly? They play in the same league.
Part of the justification the BBC gives for its existence is that it does not have to simply duplicate what commercial providers do. It feels like they try to argue both sides of the issue: the license fee is good because it frees them from the need to do populist stuff and lets them focus on worthy but expensive programming like documentaries and news, but it's also bad because it means they can't compete (anymore) with commercial outlets on producing populist dramas.
Rather than demand more money, maybe they should consider their focus. Apple/Amazon/Netflix don't attempt to fund worldwide journalism or radio. If the BBC is finding itself faced with better competitors, perhaps it should re-allocate resources towards the stuff it does that's unique.
I'm on a phone so I'll try and respond more in depth later but the total income based on the yearly accounts was £4993M in year end 2011, and £4889M in year end 2019. That's not adjusting for anything, just total income.
> because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now
Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. But not nearly enough value for what it costs in my opinion, and with the very limited programming it would become boring quickly.
> because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now
> Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie.
The comment you quote says "the way people want to consume", but your comment is about the content itself.
I think most people want the on-demand style, but of course everyone also wants there to be good content. Content being equal, do you think on-demand content is not the way most people would want to consume it?
When several people are potentially watching it can take a long time to reach consensus. Even by myself I've scrolled Netflix for 15 minutes and then turned it off, because I can't agree what I want to watch...
In contrast, channels have content in sync with the rhythm of the day and the hour. You only have to choose the channel. I wish I could flick through channel streams at the speed I can flick through broadcast channels.
I understand the point, but whether it actually is the way people want to consume content or not is irrelevant — that is the accusation being levelled at the BBC, and specifically that they risk being “Blockbuster in the age of Netflix”.
I don't think I can substantively disagree with anything said here. Though I can think of a few places where iPad has revolutionised things; most notably point-of-sale. Especially for small businesses, I commonly see iPad and other tablet form factors used for retail point of sale.
Can you recall any more specifics of the story you watched? I'm very familiar with the history of Doctor Who, but I'm not aware of any episode or story having aired without sound effects. Any details you have will help me narrow down the episode you're referring to.
Sorry, it was something I watched probably over 30 years ago. It was only noteworthy because I couldn't imagine another show that would have continued rather than waiting for the strike to conclude. I believe it was multiple episodes as part of the same story line, probably starring Tom Baker, but I can't even be sure of that.
May I ask - are you based in the US? You may be remembering the US syndicated version of “Resurrection of the Daleks” which mistakenly aired without music or sound effects. The story was completed with a full dub, however, and aired in the UK correctly.
Yes, I'm in the US. And it's entirely possible that I've got the back story for the missing sound completely wrong, I don't remember how I got that information.
Silly trivia: the effect they’ve called “Martian Computer 1972” was used in Doctor Who in 1966, without some of the twinkly bits over the top and at a slightly slower speed.
Presumably it was reworked for a production in 1972, and so is in the library under that name.
There's a copy of the same effect at a lower pitch without the 'twinkly bits' under the name 'Electronic Signals. (Computer atmosphere.)' - I guess that's the original. There's a few with this name, and there doesn't seem to be a way to link to just one? 4th down here for me: http://bbcsfx.acropolis.org.uk/?q=electronic+signals
Richard Russell was also involved in the Colour Recovery Working Group, which successfully sought to recover the colour signal from black and white telerecordings.
For background: many programmes produced on colour videotape by the BBC in the 70s, were distributed to overseas broadcasters on black and white film only. When the BBC destroyed the original videotapes, this left the black and white films as the only remaining copies of these programmes. In some cases, however, the colour information had been accidentally embedded into the black and white film (a notch filter should have been used to remove it).
So around 2008, Richard developed a piece of software, in BBC BASIC, which was able to recover the embedded colour signal and restore several programmes held in black and white to their full colour glory.
The process seems fairly DSP intensive. If I recall, the IQ modulated color signal would leave a dot pattern in the luminance signal. I wonder how many frames it could process a second, if written in BASIC.
This is also my take on this paper. It records an increase in reported side effects, which is not the same thing as an actual increase in side effects. Patients may have been experiencing these side effects anyway, but either didn’t report them, or didn’t associate them with the intervention.
Knowing these side effects are associated with the intervention would likely be enough for Confirmation Bias to increase the reported instance.
I thought something was mentioned about "active gaze" in the keynote? The phone detects if you're paying attention; it doesn't unlock if you have your eyes closed, it doesn't unlock if you aren't looking directly at it.
Should make it more difficult (though not impossible) to force an unlock by waving the phone in an unwilling person's face?
You only need to look at the phone for a brief moment. It's designed to quickly unlock. If you had to stare at the phone for 10 seconds it would be a frustrating experience.
