Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 3)
Discussion
768 said:
In 2020...something? Probably by sending it over the internet.
But in other circumstances you just encrypt the broadcast and supply some cheap hardware to decrypt. Much like satellite TV, or like Sirius has been doing in the US for nearly 20 years.
Good luck retro-fitting that to the millions of existing home and in car radios in circulation.But in other circumstances you just encrypt the broadcast and supply some cheap hardware to decrypt. Much like satellite TV, or like Sirius has been doing in the US for nearly 20 years.
768 said:
XCP said:
turbobloke said:
XCP said:
As long as there aren't adverts. I don't begrudge the licence fee and having no adverts is refreshing.
A subscription service need not have any adverts. Why consider adverts, given the vast popularity of the BBC? But in other circumstances you just encrypt the broadcast and supply some cheap hardware to decrypt. Much like satellite TV, or like Sirius has been doing in the US for nearly 20 years.
Edit. That does raise the issue of how to distribute a paid for BBC service. Aerial transmissions to houses would be harder to check and regulate. Cost of the transmitter network and infrastructure would probably rise affecting other services.
Edited by Zirconia on Tuesday 17th December 08:51
Brooking10 said:
768 said:
In 2020...something? Probably by sending it over the internet.
But in other circumstances you just encrypt the broadcast and supply some cheap hardware to decrypt. Much like satellite TV, or like Sirius has been doing in the US for nearly 20 years.
Good luck retro-fitting that to the millions of existing home and in car radios in circulation.But in other circumstances you just encrypt the broadcast and supply some cheap hardware to decrypt. Much like satellite TV, or like Sirius has been doing in the US for nearly 20 years.
768 said:
Good luck retro-fitting colour to black and white TVs. Or 4k. Or catchup.
I thought you’d come back with that not entirely comparable example 
ETA - why not comparable ? Because each of those was an incremental addition as opposed to a mass switch over.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 17th December 08:59
turbobloke said:
It's still coercion, if the BBC is so wonderful they'll be flooded with subscription requests. It would be added to our CT which is already high enough.
The outdated forced funding mechanism should be scrapped in favour of freedom of choice.
There is freedom of choice now. I don't have a TV licence (haven't had one since 2009) because I choose not to have a TV and I don't live stream anything.The outdated forced funding mechanism should be scrapped in favour of freedom of choice.
768 said:
They're all backwards-incompatible changes to broadcast. It's a solved problem from a technical perspective.
See editThey are all incremental examples where the immediate direct to consumer premium was absorbed in hardware not via service provision.
We are getting way off topic here but how do you manage a switchover from FTA and legacy to paid and new hardware ?
plasticpig said:
turbobloke said:
It's still coercion, if the BBC is so wonderful they'll be flooded with subscription requests. It would be added to our CT which is already high enough.
The outdated forced funding mechanism should be scrapped in favour of freedom of choice.
There is freedom of choice now. I don't have a TV licence (haven't had one since 2009) because I choose not to have a TV and I don't live stream anything.The outdated forced funding mechanism should be scrapped in favour of freedom of choice.
Brooking10 said:
They are all incremental examples where the immediate direct to consumer premium was absorbed in hardware not via service provision.
They're not incremental features. The rollout was incremental. You'd just do the same; start the new broadcast, give people notice of a switchoff - I think 5 years was what the digital switchover took.janesmith1950 said:
Boring!
Isn't it just.768 said:
Brooking10 said:
They are all incremental examples where the immediate direct to consumer premium was absorbed in hardware not via service provision.
They're not incremental features. The rollout was incremental. You'd just do the same; start the new broadcast, give people notice of a switchoff - I think 5 years was what the digital switchover took.janesmith1950 said:
Boring!
Isn't it just.
Of course they are incremental features. 4K is not the norm for example.
Above all else you are conveniently missing out the bit that you immediately hobble the new subscription funded business’ ability to compete through your approach. It would need much greater thought than your classically binary PH suggestion.
And yes it is boring
Brooking10 said:
768 said:
Brooking10 said:
They are all incremental examples where the immediate direct to consumer premium was absorbed in hardware not via service provision.
They're not incremental features. The rollout was incremental. You'd just do the same; start the new broadcast, give people notice of a switchoff - I think 5 years was what the digital switchover took.janesmith1950 said:
Boring!
Isn't it just.Of course they are incremental features. 4K is not the norm for example.
Above all else you are conveniently missing out the bit that you immediately hobble the new subscription funded business’ ability to compete through your approach. It would need much greater thought than your classically binary PH suggestion.
And yes it is boring
I don't think Cummings wants a viable BBC at the end of this, don't expect this to go that encryption way, I think he will go after the licence (no one has a working crystal ball here). He cannot affect the others directly but denuding the BBC and having it probably pull out of networks will upset the costings. Other channels may have to up their subs to the likes of Arqiva. ITV is not flush with loot, Sky relies on footy and that is at risk now every bidding war and they are trying to get an IPTV solution I think, the effects could go further than just someone happy they no longer have to pay the government to watch TV.
plasticpig said:
turbobloke said:
It's still coercion, if the BBC is so wonderful they'll be flooded with subscription requests. It would be added to our CT which is already high enough.
The outdated forced funding mechanism should be scrapped in favour of freedom of choice.
There is freedom of choice now. I don't have a TV licence (haven't had one since 2009) because I choose not to have a TV and I don't live stream anything.The outdated forced funding mechanism should be scrapped in favour of freedom of choice.
The first, not to have a TV or device which allows viewing of live broadcasts. here are 27.6 million UK households and 27.1 million have a TV licence. The position you describe is unrealistic for the vast majority, though available and convenient for a tiny proportion of UK households.
The second choice is no choice, since for nearly every household in the UK - those with devices capable of receiving live broadcasts - there's a compulsory requirement to fund a biased left of centre propaganda outfit masquerading as a state broadcaster.
Subscription would sort it, and no adverts need be present. The BBC will be flush with money given how good and how popular it is...those who wish to watch it can continue to do so while paying for the service. Those who don't want to fund the BBC will not be coerced into doing so, no more subsidies. This freedom of choice is way overdue.
Zirconia said:
The problem is Boris doesn't know what it will take and allow his minion to wade in (I wouldn't expect him to know but I don't think he has the ability or desire to ask the right people). Problem chucking encryption into an existing transmission model to upset the BBC with link budgets and other parties using the transmitters, it doesn't happen over night and it isn't easy. Though I suppose the cost would be tuppence compared to HS2 cost over run.
I don't think Cummings wants a viable BBC at the end of this, don't expect this to go that encryption way, I think he will go after the licence (no one has a working crystal ball here). He cannot affect the others directly but denuding the BBC and having it probably pull out of networks will upset the costings. Other channels may have to up their subs to the likes of Arqiva. ITV is not flush with loot, Sky relies on footy and that is at risk now every bidding war and they are trying to get an IPTV solution I think, the effects could go further than just someone happy they no longer have to pay the government to watch TV.
There are lots of underlying good points in that post.I don't think Cummings wants a viable BBC at the end of this, don't expect this to go that encryption way, I think he will go after the licence (no one has a working crystal ball here). He cannot affect the others directly but denuding the BBC and having it probably pull out of networks will upset the costings. Other channels may have to up their subs to the likes of Arqiva. ITV is not flush with loot, Sky relies on footy and that is at risk now every bidding war and they are trying to get an IPTV solution I think, the effects could go further than just someone happy they no longer have to pay the government to watch TV.
Key amongst them is the fact that currently this debate is one of ideology over practicality.
At this stage it is, as I said earlier, a phoney war and one very much underpinned by dog whistle politics. The efficacy of Cummings’ approach can be seen clearly in the responses on this and other PH threads !
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 17th December 10:02
Aah, years of right leaning press has drip fed the message that the BBC is full of marxists and should be scrapped. It's almost as if the media owners were ready to swoop in and pick over the bones of the BBC corpse for their own profit.
Unfortunately, the Sky monopoly of owning a satellite transmission network has been undermined by the pesky internet, leaving sky as a walking dead man service reliant on other fickle content providers.
As we are seeing with the existing streaming services, whoever owns the content owns the service, the BBC has stacks of original content and could stand up a desirable service for many people. The other channels less so. We could easily end up in a position whereby the new BBC is the only producer of UK content, as the other services have to resort to buying in content from the US networks, or show cheap to make filler (aka antique master bake off).
Of course, any change to the BBC contract would have to leave a basic free to air news service. I'm sure Dominic C would like this to be renamed the Ministry of Hate and only show good news Tory articles, whilst casting the opposition in a bad light.
Unfortunately, the Sky monopoly of owning a satellite transmission network has been undermined by the pesky internet, leaving sky as a walking dead man service reliant on other fickle content providers.
As we are seeing with the existing streaming services, whoever owns the content owns the service, the BBC has stacks of original content and could stand up a desirable service for many people. The other channels less so. We could easily end up in a position whereby the new BBC is the only producer of UK content, as the other services have to resort to buying in content from the US networks, or show cheap to make filler (aka antique master bake off).
Of course, any change to the BBC contract would have to leave a basic free to air news service. I'm sure Dominic C would like this to be renamed the Ministry of Hate and only show good news Tory articles, whilst casting the opposition in a bad light.
This obsession to destroy the BBC is frankly bizarre. It's one of the great British cultural institutions, you'd have thought Brexiters would be in the streets protesting against abolition.
Given they have been accused of bias by both Labour and the Tories, it sounds like they are working perfectly.
Given they have been accused of bias by both Labour and the Tories, it sounds like they are working perfectly.
768 said:
Brooking10 said:
They are all incremental examples where the immediate direct to consumer premium was absorbed in hardware not via service provision.
They're not incremental features. The rollout was incremental. You'd just do the same; start the new broadcast, give people notice of a switchoff - I think 5 years was what the digital switchover took.janesmith1950 said:
Boring!
Isn't it just.The BDUK superfast broadband rollout is also partially funded from the same source.
tangerine_sedge said:
the BBC has stacks of original content and could stand up a desirable service for many people.
Is this really the case? A lot of programs are simply licensed to the BBC from others rather than developed in house. It's the reason why content is only on iPlayer/Sounds for a limited time and would severely limit the BBC's ability to compete with the lies of Amazon, where I can pick up a program at any time and start from Series 1, Episode 1.I've just looked on iPlayer for Poldark as a quick example - nothing currently available as it's all out of license for online broadcast.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff