BritBox streaming service from BBC and ITV launched today

[Hoonigan]

personally with BBC content my opinion is that we have already paid for it, with license fees, since day 1, we should now have access to all of it. This may however, require an increase in license fees to pay for hosting.

That's what I was saying in a discussion elsewhere. We've already paid for this content to be produced but if you didn't watch it live or manage to catch a repeat, tough. There's the DVD/BluRay route but it leaves a bitter taste paying for it twice.

[Millennium]

If they can license streaming BBC without a TV license they will have a product, it seems to be mainly for resale though rather than the mass market.

I am just waiting until everything on Sounds + iPlayer is with a year archive, or more, then my TV license may seem worth it again. Meanwhile I use it for the monthly Bloomberg or Music TV session. Ripped off? You bet.

[cheesemp]

I can see myself subscription surfing. This month kids its Britbox. Next month its Disney+. Better get binge watching on the exclusives! I just can't justify more than one 'tv' subscription of more than about £7 month (I never bothered with Sky as it was so expensive). Who is going to keep all these subscriptions going?

I'm just hoping the different firms will offer deals as you cancelled say 6 months ago, have 2 months for 1! That'll be even cheaper. I can then play the same game I do with broadband by switching and hardly paying anything.

[Saracen999]

I have to wonder if this is a pre-cursor to an entirely different BBC model, not least because the TV licence days seem to be numbered, and with it, perhaps, broadcaster-led content scheduling.

Msybe it makes more sense, for the majority of "users" to dump clanky old broadcast mechanusms entirely? After all, that's a huge chunk of currentky reserved bandwidth that would no doubt have significant revenue-generating commercial uses.

They could even have a "streaming" channel or two with current BBC1/2 content, and a +1, +2, +24 type option from an online TV Guide that then does an on-demand supply thing if anyone selects from that guide.

Same could apply to providing the elements necessary to meet the BBC charter obligations to inform, educate, etc.


I've so far supported the license model, but even I'm finding it harder and garder to do so ....helped by the BBC cramming the gap between programs with adverts .... for their own stuff.

One USP for Auntie Beeb always was content delivery uninterrupted by adverts but even that is getting to be so last century, with znetflix, etc, offering ad-free delivery and advertisers moving (sorry, largely already moved) online, at least in large part.

The whole broadcast "over air" thing is starting to look a bit like the last of a dinosaur breed that hasn't yet noticed it's a fossil.

[Hoonigan]

Helped by the BBC cramming the gap between programs with adverts .... for their own stuff..

This is a large part of the problem for me, we pay £150 a year to get television without adverts, that we absolutely must pay to watch any live TV, even if you're watching it through SkyGo on a Playstation, streamed over the internet, but they put adverts in.

It doesn't matter if that advert is for the new Mega Ultra Triple Stacker from McDonalds or for the latest BBC program, an advert is an advert. They've even introduced them into the iPlayer (skippable, but for how long?).

I'm currently paying for a TV Licence so that I can watch the Formula 1, through a PS4, via a SkyGo subscription that my dad allows me to use; what does the BBC have to do with that? £150 a year stings a lot. I use the iPlayer as well, but only to try and get some value out of that £150.

[spacein_vader]

The issue of the eventual move away from the licence fee is removing the stuff it also pays for but can't be controlled. If it was just TV you could lock most (I'd argue Parliament & News should be FTA regardless of platform,) inside the iPlayer and charge a sub and for TV this would be fine.

But it also pays for the website, which is also easy to put behind a sub.

And radio. Which is not. Both the national and local AM/FM stations have no simple way of going behind a paywall without turning off broadcast altogether. And IP radio has nowhere near the reach as IP TV.

Of course you could make them as funded or remove them, but I'd say that while the market could replace the national stations local radio is woeful.

[cheesemp]

The issue of the eventual move away from the licence fee is removing the stuff it also pays for but can't be controlled. If it was just TV you could lock most (I'd argue Parliament & News should be FTA regardless of platform,) inside the iPlayer and charge a sub and for TV this would be fine.

But it also pays for the website, which is also easy to put behind a sub.

And radio. Which is not. Both the national and local AM/FM stations have no simple way of going behind a paywall without turning off broadcast altogether. And IP radio has nowhere near the reach as IP TV.

Of course you could make them as funded or remove them, but I'd say that while the market could replace the national stations local radio is woeful.

The problem with all this is the old and poor. Its all well and good sticking this stuff behind a subscription but when the average 70+ year old struggles to even access the internet how can they get it? Its going to go this way eventually however it will require internet access to be pretty much ubiquitous first (and smart devices that don't go dumb after 2 years - looking at some budget TVs that no longer work!). I still think you need to give it 10 years+.

[Saracen999]

The problem with all this is the old and poor. Its all well and good sticking this stuff behind a subscription but when the average 70+ year old struggles to even access the internet how can they get it? Its going to go this way eventually however it will require internet access to be pretty much ubiquitous first (and smart devices that don't go dumb after 2 years - looking at some budget TVs that no longer work!). I still think you need to give it 10 years+.

You must know a different bunch of 70-year olds to me, if the "average" struggles to access the internet. One or two I know don't have the net, but it's through choice not lack of ability. The other couple of dozen or so have been accessing it for many years. And it is an ..... erm .... self-remedying issue anyway.

Besides, if you can access a TV program guide on cable etc, you can access a Netflux engine. The transmission mechanism, be it over-air, cable service or streaming, is pretty much irrelevant.

I think you underestimate many 70-yr-olds and over.

[spacein_vader]

You must know a different bunch of 70-year olds to me, if the "average" struggles to access the internet. One or two I know don't have the net, but it's through choice not lack of ability. The other couple of dozen or so have been accessing it for many years. And it is an ..... erm .... self-remedying issue anyway.

Besides, if you can access a TV program guide on cable etc, you can access a Netflux engine. The transmission mechanism, be it over-air, cable service or streaming, is pretty much irrelevant.

I think you underestimate many 70-yr-olds and over.

Agreed.

Also 95% of the country has access to broadband according to OFCOM.

[Ravuncher]

Seems a bit late to the streaming train? A lot of work needed to stand out surely