The good people of Selcuk, Turkey, absolutely do not give the tiniest of fucks about Ramadan
Ephesus is hardly a place that is off the archaeological beaten track - that's about as mainstream as you can get as it's why Kuşadası gets all the cruise ships.
There are far better things for Governments to be doing?
What exactly does the Government do with Channel 4?
People seem to think government owned means a team of Civil Servants and ministers pouring over the schedules to see where to put Location, Location, Location. We're all having this debate like the government gives a damn about what is best for Channel 4 or indeed media in this country. They see a quick buck and because they don't like it's ethos (which was set by a Conservative government) see no reason not to cash in.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM. I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
You didn't "choose someone else to be PM" because there was no third option. And you delegated the choice between the possible options to others.
You're still trying to categorise me as either a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim. What if I'm just a Muslim Muslim?
There was a third choice. I literally voted for it. There were more than three choices, you gaslighting freak.
There were exactly two possible Prime Ministers - Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. I'm sorry that you don't like that fact, but since you've resorted to plain insult, I think we'd better leave it there.
There were many POSSIBLE prime ministers. There was only one candidate who had any realistic chance of winning, and he won.
And no, I'm never going to "leave it there" until you stop telling me that I'm wrong about what I did and why. Telling someone that they didn't really vote for the party/candidate/leader they ACTUALLY VOTED FOR is one of the weirdest holes I've ever seen anyone dig themselves into.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM. I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
You didn't "choose someone else to be PM" because there was no third option. And you delegated the choice between the possible options to others.
You're still trying to categorise me as either a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim. What if I'm just a Muslim Muslim?
There was a third choice. I literally voted for it. There were more than three choices, you gaslighting freak.
Even Muslims are Shia or Sunni, the Protestant v Roman Catholic divide of Islam!
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.
The BBC is a global icon in broadcasting. Channel 4 is a lot younger, but punches well above its weight. The Conservatives say they want to celebrate Global Britain, but starting fights with our world-leading enterprises seems an odd way to celebrate them.
It's pretty clear that these moves have nothing really to do with making Channel 4 more agile and able to complete with Netflix. It's because the Government gets its knickers in a twist if they receive any media coverage less fawning than the Daily Mail's and so they don't like Channel 4 News.
Everything is in the state's orbit. Netflix or ITV still have to follow UK company and broadcasting laws. I don't want Nadine Dorries to get a say given she's clearly incompetent, but unfortunately the Conservative Party seem to like her.
Of course if the BBC wants to raise revenue via a licence fee it can do so privately, its generally called a subscription when private entities do it though. There's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except the licence fee is charged even on people who want to consume other live broadcasting instead of the BBC - eg Sky Sports etc - whereas private entities can't charge you for consuming somebody else's product. So if you mean they can't opt to do that in the future - no, nor should they have ever been allowed to that's an historical anomaly that needs fixing.
The BBC was a global icon in broadcasting. About sixty years ago, decades before I was born, when Monty Python was a thing. Now? Not so much.
That you think the BBC is world leading shows you're so far in denial you might as well be in Egypt. No wonder you thought those embarrassing buzzword bingo links you sent earlier about how they might in the future have suggestions was them adapting.
So you're saying there's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except for the difference...?
Except for why its broken, yes.
Or do you have the audaciousness to be saying its a good thing that people are obliged to pay for the BBC just because they want to watch a competitor live?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
It doesn't fill me with any confidence they know how to adapt if their shoot for the stars vision of technology in 2025 is a recommendation system on their streaming platform.
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.
The thing is that the atrocities in Bucha are entirely credible, when the Russian army clearly is quite happy to use heavy artillery and missiles on civilian flats, schools, shops and theatres. The killing by shooting and robbing is just a bit more intimate, but fundamentally the same crime.
Once they are brutalised, soldiers do incredibly hideous things in a war
I am still haunted by the stories (apparently true) of American military truck drivers playing “gook hockey” in Vietnam
The idea was to speed down a highway as fast as possible and at the perfect moment kick open a door so as to hit a pedestrian, injuring or killing them
Whoever hit the most locals, won that round of “gook hockey”
These were previously civilised American males, who got used to brutal cruelty and death
So that story out of Ukraine might well be fake news, but it is certainly not outwith the known behaviour of men during war
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
There are lots of solutions. It is there isn't the political will (with a small p i.e. not just government) to do anything constructive and pro-active.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Sorry but for most people and indeed most content 4k and proper HDR aren't worth the very significant additional costs.
Firstly because most people really wouldn't care and except for sport and for Premium Drama 4K and proper HDR just isn't required.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
This was raised during the Euros. Some people at the time suggested it was a rights issue, but it doesn't seem the case, because it isn't full HD for their own programmes.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Sorry but for most people and indeed most content 4k and proper HDR aren't worth the very significant additional costs.
Firstly because most people really wouldn't care and except for sport and for Premium Drama 4K and proper HDR just isn't required.
I couldn't even watch the sodding Euro finals in 4k because iPlayer "beta" crapped out. iPlayer 4k has been in "beta" for 5 years now.
Also, we are talking future vision here, where CH4 future vision is a personalised recommendation system for 4oD, just wow...wow....amazing. 3 years time they will have what has been standard for 10 years by then.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
I was referring to how the industry is resistant to technological change not the BBC. It is. The switch from Black and White to colour was problematic to UK TV. There was alot of resistance to it. You feel it is nonsense, fine, but what I say is borne out by how this industry behaves historically and continues to do so.
The model of funding TV stations is changing as well. The BBC are failing to embrace that and they are, quite frankly, miles behind the likes of Netflix and other streaming services when it comes to delivery
The BBC thought the buy to own model was the future and invested in BBC Store, which died a death rapidly. The BBC has hardly embraced technological change, technological change has been forced on it. The same with Channel 4, the film industry and the music industry. Any change is seen as a threat to it.
The BBC recently brought back BBC Three and its ratings are dire. There was little demand for it. The BBC, once again, clueless. Even with BBC Three shows being regularly plugged on BBC One and Two and on its website the ratings are poor.
Personally for me I do not care about the change to the funding of the BBC solving any global broadcast challenge. I just think the license fee is inherently unfair and have done for many years. I was arguing this on the old uk.media.tv.misc as far back as the nineties. Pay for any public service obligation (local radio for example) and the transmission network through general tax and let them raise their own revenue. also allow anyone to bid for the public service broadcast funding.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
The flaw with this argument is why should we believe a privatised Channel 4 will become a second Netflix when no rationale at all is put forward for the change, beyond Nadine wants this? Channel 4 has a niche in its current form. What will the privatised version offer?
Who gives a fuck. The government owning C4 is like the government owning W H Smith. What’s the point? Sell it while it is still worth something. We need the money
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
Ownership and funding are linked though as the funding model that C4 has been relying upon is dying - fast. And so either it evolves under ownership that is ready to adapt to that and generates alternative funding sources - or the owners will be liable for losses or winding it up when the funding dries up.
Realistically the state isn't best placed to generate the alternative funding sources - and left to its own devices under its current ownership their plans for the future are embarrassing at best, so an alternative ownership is needed to get the funding in place for the future. The two are intrinsically linked.
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.
The thing is that the atrocities in Bucha are entirely credible, when the Russian army clearly is quite happy to use heavy artillery and missiles on civilian flats, schools, shops and theatres. The killing by shooting and robbing is just a bit more intimate, but fundamentally the same crime.
Once they are brutalised, soldiers do incredibly hideous things in a war
I am still haunted by the stories (apparently true) of American military truck drivers playing “gook hockey” in Vietnam
The idea was to speed down a highway as fast as possible and at the perfect moment kick open a door so as to hit a pedestrian, injuring or killing them
Whoever hit the most locals, won that round of “gook hockey”
These were previously civilised American males, who got used to brutal cruelty and death
So that story out of Ukraine might well be fake news, but it is certainly not outwith the known behaviour of men during war
It's also my fault for posting the wrong link, so apologies to @Dura_Ace for my terse reply. I felt some scepticism about that one too - though there have been numerous similar reports.
Tomorrow Ursula von der Leyen the European Commission President is travelling to Kyiv. The Slovak prime minister Eduard Heger has decided to join in, as he missed out visiting last month with the Czech, Polish and Slovenian PMs.
Speaking to James O'Brien, Sir Keir said there is "no case for rejoining the EU" but Labour will "make it work".
He said: "We can't reverse Brexit. There's no case for rejoining the EU.
What's changed since 2016 then? Other than Labour being handed its arse in a large number of seats, like...
Never trust a politician.
We've got to do this from a position of principle. Did we agree that we would put this decision out to the public for a vote? Yes. Did we agree that we would accept the result? Yes. Have we got to accept the result? Yes. So, the first position is a matter of principle. Having done this, having got a result, we've got to accept it. Simply saying: ‘Well, it's better for us electorally 'if we do this or do that’ doesn't help. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2017
if we need to break the impasse, our options must include campaigning for a public vote – and nobody is ruling out Remain as an option. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2018
The good people of Selcuk, Turkey, absolutely do not give the tiniest of fucks about Ramadan
Ephesus is hardly a place that is off the archaeological beaten track - that's about as mainstream as you can get as it's why Kuşadası gets all the cruise ships.
Selcuk is very Turkish. There’s about 5 tourists here
Ephesus was deserted! Which made it all the lovelier
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
Hold on, what are you saying? That Channel Four should be sold to a private buyer and that the private buyer completely change its model? What's the advantage for the buyer as opposed to just, you know, starting a new company with the "right" model?
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
It's worth challenging them. EDF wanted to more than double my monthly direct debit - I asked them to "show me their working" and when they couldn't they agreed to an increase of 54% in line with the unit increases.
If you've been offered it, look Fixed Tariffs in the mouth. They are not regulated.
At present my fixed rate offer, which was prominently offered, is 50% higher than the price-capped variable tariff.
You need a very good known trend in your usage to justify it.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
Ownership and funding are linked though as the funding model that C4 has been relying upon is dying - fast. And so either it evolves under ownership that is ready to adapt to that and generates alternative funding sources - or the owners will be liable for losses or winding it up when the funding dries up.
Realistically the state isn't best placed to generate the alternative funding sources - and left to its own devices under its current ownership their plans for the future are embarrassing at best, so an alternative ownership is needed to get the funding in place for the future. The two are intrinsically linked.
How can you say it's dying when they are making a profit right now, in the present, in the teeth of Netflix/Amazon. Ah the future, streaming, you say. But you could as easily say that people will get sick of paying a subscription for a streaming service only 3% of which they ever use.
Both a subscription model and ad-funded are of course commercial models and there may well be room for both in the market so I'm not sure why you say "Commercial TV has failed". And as I noted above, there is probably a large number of people who would put up with adverts in order to get "free" tv.
Be against government ownership of TV companies (I am) by all means but your strange arguments around "Commercial TV" and the streaming services does your case no good if you conflate as @eek notes, ownership and business models.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
Certainly no one has come up with a solution either the BBC would agree to or could get some sort of consensus.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
Hold on, what are you saying? That Channel Four should be sold to a private buyer and that the private buyer completely change its model? What's the advantage for the buyer as opposed to just, you know, starting a new company with the "right" model?
Yes that's what I am saying, its model needs to evolve to compete online post-broadcasting instead of being the nation's fourth broadcasting channel. Isn't that blindingly obvious yet?
The advantage for the buyer? It has infrastructure, brand awareness, the rights it owns etc - but all that will get less valuable as time goes on and it gets left further and further behind, so its kind of now or never if you're going to do it, while there's still something valuable there.
Call me insane, but I reckon the "linear TV is going the way of the dodo" viewpoint is similar to the "physical cash is going the way of the dodo" one, in that in current trends its true until it hits a floor that people go "yes but what about in this circumstance...".
There's no doubt a migration and a likely end point that is no linear TV and no linear cash, but it might end up being on a longer timescale than you'd think from the recent trendlines, driven by demographics as much as anything.
I am of course prepared to be proven entirely wrong in the near future!
I seem to recall cheques were going to be ended in, what, 2016?
Evolution does result in some extinctions, but also in a lot of previously dominant species surviving in smaller niche environments.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation. Nor has the government. The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
The destruction of Russian war equipment continues...
"#Ukraine: 2 days ago, the Operational Command "East" of the Ukrainian Army posted video that claimed to show "over 40" Russian vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian Artillery fire on a Russian rear base.
We did not publish it, as we couldn't verify the claim or the target. However...
It actually turns out that this claim was legitimate, with at least 35 vehicles totally destroyed or damaged; mostly supply or fuel trucks, but with BMP/T-72 variant also. This is a serious blow."
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
I think ultimately their hatred of Boris / Brexit will still have these people don their Polly Trademarked nose pegs and vote against Boris.
They probably will. Much like those Tories who still believe in the quaint concept of obeying the law will apply their red, white and blue nose pegs and vote for Johnson.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
Hold on, what are you saying? That Channel Four should be sold to a private buyer and that the private buyer completely change its model? What's the advantage for the buyer as opposed to just, you know, starting a new company with the "right" model?
Yes that's what I am saying, its model needs to evolve to compete online post-broadcasting instead of being the nation's fourth broadcasting channel. Isn't that blindingly obvious yet?
The advantage for the buyer? It has infrastructure, brand awareness, the rights it owns etc - but all that will get less valuable as time goes on and it gets left further and further behind, so its kind of now or never if you're going to do it, while there's still something valuable there.
So you think it should sell at the value of its goodwill. Let's see if that is what transpires.
Tomorrow Ursula von der Leyen the European Commission President is travelling to Kyiv. The Slovak prime minister Eduard Heger has decided to join in, as he missed out visiting last month with the Czech, Polish and Slovenian PMs.
Perhaps it is a timetabling clash?
That might not be quite the PR opportunity that Ursula von der Leyen is expecting.
I noticed the same in Sanliurfa, which is a very different part of Turkey and extremely devout and conservative - because it is the alleged birthplace of Abraham
Last time I was there - 15 years ago - almost half the women were in full on burqas and the like. Face veils. All black
I saw maybe one burqa this time. No other veiled women. Lots of women without headscarves. Bars selling booze (not many, but there were none before). Also people openly eating and drinking during the day in Ramadan
And here in west Turkey Ramadan basically is not happening. Next to me there are 70 old Turkish guys all drinking tea and coffee and playing dominoes - and young women are drinking wine behind me
It’s an encouraging thought in a discouraging world. We may have seen the worst of ultra orthodox conservative Islam. Its moment has passed
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
Hold on, what are you saying? That Channel Four should be sold to a private buyer and that the private buyer completely change its model? What's the advantage for the buyer as opposed to just, you know, starting a new company with the "right" model?
I have no stake in the C4 issue very much, except that I find C4 News a decent counterbalance, and its Ukrainian coverage has been good. I can live without it , but I hardly watch telly anyway. The thought of watching the rest of C4 output would, I am sorry to say, never cross my mind since it stopped doing Test Matches.
What I don't understand about the discussion on PB is:
what would constitute a good outcome in terms of contents and output
and
what is the evidence for all the options as to which way is best to get there.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
Ownership and funding are linked though as the funding model that C4 has been relying upon is dying - fast. And so either it evolves under ownership that is ready to adapt to that and generates alternative funding sources - or the owners will be liable for losses or winding it up when the funding dries up.
Realistically the state isn't best placed to generate the alternative funding sources - and left to its own devices under its current ownership their plans for the future are embarrassing at best, so an alternative ownership is needed to get the funding in place for the future. The two are intrinsically linked.
How can you say it's dying when they are making a profit right now, in the present, in the teeth of Netflix/Amazon. Ah the future, streaming, you say. But you could as easily say that people will get sick of paying a subscription for a streaming service only 3% of which they ever use.
Both a subscription model and ad-funded are of course commercial models and there may well be room for both in the market so I'm not sure why you say "Commercial TV has failed". And as I noted above, there is probably a large number of people who would put up with adverts in order to get "free" tv.
Be against government ownership of TV companies (I am) by all means but your strange arguments around "Commercial TV" and the streaming services does your case no good if you conflate as @eek notes, ownership and business models.
By "commercial" TV I was quite clearly referring to, as I had already pointed out, TV funded by commercials as opposed to alternatives.
The owners need to find another business model as C4's is dying. Yes its running a profit today, I don't deny that, but its not going to in five or ten years time if nothing changes.
You're like somebody in 2005 saying that Blockbuster is making a profit from its video stores so it has no reason to consider changing.
Speaking to James O'Brien, Sir Keir said there is "no case for rejoining the EU" but Labour will "make it work".
He said: "We can't reverse Brexit. There's no case for rejoining the EU.
What's changed since 2016 then? Other than Labour being handed its arse in a large number of seats, like...
Never trust a politician.
We've got to do this from a position of principle. Did we agree that we would put this decision out to the public for a vote? Yes. Did we agree that we would accept the result? Yes. Have we got to accept the result? Yes. So, the first position is a matter of principle. Having done this, having got a result, we've got to accept it. Simply saying: ‘Well, it's better for us electorally 'if we do this or do that’ doesn't help. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2017
if we need to break the impasse, our options must include campaigning for a public vote – and nobody is ruling out Remain as an option. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2018
I don’t find those statements particularly contradictory.
But, now a much harder task: find two contradictory Boris statements. I dare you!
Call me insane, but I reckon the "linear TV is going the way of the dodo" viewpoint is similar to the "physical cash is going the way of the dodo" one, in that in current trends its true until it hits a floor that people go "yes but what about in this circumstance...".
There's no doubt a migration and a likely end point that is no linear TV and no linear cash, but it might end up being on a longer timescale than you'd think from the recent trendlines, driven by demographics as much as anything.
I am of course prepared to be proven entirely wrong in the near future!
I seem to recall cheques were going to be ended in, what, 2016?
Evolution does result in some extinctions, but also in a lot of previously dominant species surviving in smaller niche environments.
Of course we can't hold back the tide against technological change, and our consumption of media is changing and will continue to change.
But for those so in favour of subscription services, I do suspect this will end in the consumer getting ripped off by avaricious corporations. How many subscriptions will I need? I like my football, so that means Sky, BT and Amazon for now, though that's likely to expand. I like music, so that means Spotify. Netflix has enough good stuff on to pay for. And then there's Disney and others that I'm less familiar with. Ten years down the line, how much is it going to cost me to buy what I want to watch? Quite a lot, I'd guess. Okay for those who can afford it.
By contrast, the licence fee seems pretty good value for money.
I noticed the same in Sanliurfa, which is a very different part of Turkey and extremely devout and conservative - because it is the alleged birthplace of Abraham
Last time I was there - 15 years ago - almost half the women were in full on burqas and the like. Face veils. All black
I saw maybe one burqa this time. No other veiled women. Lots of women without headscarves. Bars selling booze (not many, but there were none before). Also people openly eating and drinking during the day in Ramadan
And here in west Turkey Ramadan basically is not happening. Next to me there are 70 old Turkish guys all drinking tea and coffee and playing dominoes - and young women are drinking wine behind me
It’s an encouraging thought in a discouraging world. We may have seen the worst of ultra orthodox conservative Islam. Its moment has passed
🙏
I wonder if there is much hope for a Kemalist revival in Turkey? And I thought the full veil was banned in Turkey.
The destruction of Russian war equipment continues...
"#Ukraine: 2 days ago, the Operational Command "East" of the Ukrainian Army posted video that claimed to show "over 40" Russian vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian Artillery fire on a Russian rear base.
We did not publish it, as we couldn't verify the claim or the target. However...
It actually turns out that this claim was legitimate, with at least 35 vehicles totally destroyed or damaged; mostly supply or fuel trucks, but with BMP/T-72 variant also. This is a serious blow."
The good people of Selcuk, Turkey, absolutely do not give the tiniest of fucks about Ramadan
Ephesus is hardly a place that is off the archaeological beaten track - that's about as mainstream as you can get as it's why Kuşadası gets all the cruise ships.
Selcuk is very Turkish. There’s about 5 tourists here
Ephesus was deserted! Which made it all the lovelier
Selcuk is one of my preferred retirement destinations, Mrs Eek however would prefer somewhere in Italy.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch / listen to content on the go with ease. Again I think it is a generation thing for you, younger people its podcasts they have on the go all the time or they listen to YouTube "videos" (however weird that might sound).
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but next cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already. And for things like sports and movie, 4k / HDR, makes a massive difference.
Its like saying well people used to watch shows in 480p on a CRT, they were happy weren't they...now they watch them in 1080p and wonder how they ever watched 480p....with 50" tellies, which will be the normal, the same reaction will be for 4k vs 1080p.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
Ownership and funding are linked though as the funding model that C4 has been relying upon is dying - fast. And so either it evolves under ownership that is ready to adapt to that and generates alternative funding sources - or the owners will be liable for losses or winding it up when the funding dries up.
Realistically the state isn't best placed to generate the alternative funding sources - and left to its own devices under its current ownership their plans for the future are embarrassing at best, so an alternative ownership is needed to get the funding in place for the future. The two are intrinsically linked.
How can you say it's dying when they are making a profit right now, in the present, in the teeth of Netflix/Amazon. Ah the future, streaming, you say. But you could as easily say that people will get sick of paying a subscription for a streaming service only 3% of which they ever use.
Both a subscription model and ad-funded are of course commercial models and there may well be room for both in the market so I'm not sure why you say "Commercial TV has failed". And as I noted above, there is probably a large number of people who would put up with adverts in order to get "free" tv.
Be against government ownership of TV companies (I am) by all means but your strange arguments around "Commercial TV" and the streaming services does your case no good if you conflate as @eek notes, ownership and business models.
By "commercial" TV I was quite clearly referring to, as I had already pointed out, TV funded by commercials as opposed to alternatives.
The owners need to find another business model as C4's is dying. Yes its running a profit today, I don't deny that, but its not going to in five or ten years time if nothing changes.
You're like somebody in 2005 saying that Blockbuster is making a profit from its video stores so it has no reason to consider changing.
You have no idea whether that's true. Or is it as true as talkies marking the end of theatre; or video cassettes marking the end of the cinema.
As I said there is likely a large number of people who are happy with free commercial TV. Let's say they are ancient, decrepit 50-yr olds. That is still 20-30 years away so plenty of money to be made.
The destruction of Russian war equipment continues...
"#Ukraine: 2 days ago, the Operational Command "East" of the Ukrainian Army posted video that claimed to show "over 40" Russian vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian Artillery fire on a Russian rear base.
We did not publish it, as we couldn't verify the claim or the target. However...
It actually turns out that this claim was legitimate, with at least 35 vehicles totally destroyed or damaged; mostly supply or fuel trucks, but with BMP/T-72 variant also. This is a serious blow."
Russians began using MOBILE CREMATORIUMS in #Mariupol to burn bodies of slaughtered Ukrainians en masse. This is a catastrophe. And we will never learn the true scale of it
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
You seem to know an awful lot about this stuff. I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
Tomorrow Ursula von der Leyen the European Commission President is travelling to Kyiv. The Slovak prime minister Eduard Heger has decided to join in, as he missed out visiting last month with the Czech, Polish and Slovenian PMs.
Perhaps it is a timetabling clash?
Ursula might be getting her big photo op doesn't make up for the last 8 years of the EU acting like Russia wasn't a problem.
Boris will probably visit Kyiv at some point, but the material support given by the UK outweighs any photo op.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
But again there is zero point increasing production costs if the demand isn't there for those programs. There is a reason why I said Premium Drama because even Amazon and Netflix don't produce everything at 4k as it's often not worth the extra costs - and that cost is not usually equipment (although Red cameras aren't cheap), it's getting perfect lighting, perfect scenario / props and perfect costumes.
As for your TV argument if the new default size is 50" why is LGs biggest new product in the TV space this year a 42" OLED model (something they delayed from 2021 to ensure both stock is available and a suitably big announcement can be made once sales begin).
The good people of Selcuk, Turkey, absolutely do not give the tiniest of fucks about Ramadan
Ephesus is hardly a place that is off the archaeological beaten track - that's about as mainstream as you can get as it's why Kuşadası gets all the cruise ships.
Selcuk is very Turkish. There’s about 5 tourists here
Ephesus was deserted! Which made it all the lovelier
Selcuk is one of my preferred retirement destinations, Mrs Eek however would prefer somewhere in Italy.
Sorry to hear Kusadasi now has cruise ships. When I was there in 1981, it was literally a sleepy little fishing port. It was on my list of retirement possibilities.
The destruction of Russian war equipment continues...
"#Ukraine: 2 days ago, the Operational Command "East" of the Ukrainian Army posted video that claimed to show "over 40" Russian vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian Artillery fire on a Russian rear base.
We did not publish it, as we couldn't verify the claim or the target. However...
It actually turns out that this claim was legitimate, with at least 35 vehicles totally destroyed or damaged; mostly supply or fuel trucks, but with BMP/T-72 variant also. This is a serious blow."
I noticed the same in Sanliurfa, which is a very different part of Turkey and extremely devout and conservative - because it is the alleged birthplace of Abraham
Last time I was there - 15 years ago - almost half the women were in full on burqas and the like. Face veils. All black
I saw maybe one burqa this time. No other veiled women. Lots of women without headscarves. Bars selling booze (not many, but there were none before). Also people openly eating and drinking during the day in Ramadan
And here in west Turkey Ramadan basically is not happening. Next to me there are 70 old Turkish guys all drinking tea and coffee and playing dominoes - and young women are drinking wine behind me
It’s an encouraging thought in a discouraging world. We may have seen the worst of ultra orthodox conservative Islam. Its moment has passed
🙏
I wonder if there is much hope for a Kemalist revival in Turkey? And I thought the full veil was banned in Turkey.
There’s a lot of posters of Atatürk everywhere. Think it may just be some new movie about him
Nonetheless I honestly sense a trend back to secularism. Everything feels more relaxed - and I’m also talking of conservative Eastern Turkey here
I reckon maybe 50% of women in Urfa are wearing headscarves. In 2006 it was 90% minimum
That may however be a “Gobekli Tepe” effect. The site has brought much tourism and new money to the city, perhaps changing it?
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
I was but as it turns out I was wrong and very disappointed in him as I have said, though he may yet become leader and by the way there is no contest when it comes to Corbyn
Corbyn Derangement Syndrome triggers Whataboutery of the highest order.
Once again, Corbyn isn’t even a Labour MP, never mind Labour leader.
Get over it.
Given that the electorate's only alternative to having had Boris as PM for the last 2.5 years is having had Corbyn as PM for the last 2.5 years, then the comparison is fair.
Not so. The discussion was about Wales’ future vote: Corbo doesn’t come into it.
As I say, get over it.
It was nothing to do with Wales vote
Er, by Wales I meant you. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I’d be more sympathetic to Ch 4 privatisation if the govt had published a strategy document explaining clearly that the existing business model was finite and that capex was required to evolve to a new one.
As well as precisely how public service elements like Ch4 news and Film4 would be protected or perhaps ring fenced out.
But they haven’t, just decided they want $1bn bob which not a soul will notice, and a more compliant broadcast media.
President-elect to extend lifespan of 10 nuclear reactors https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/04/419_326867.html The incoming Yoon Suk-yeol administration will likely extend the lifespan of 10 aging nuclear reactors to realize the president-elect's campaign pledge to make nuclear power account for up to 35 percent of the country's energy source, up from the current 29.4 percent, according to the presidential transition committee Wednesday.
The extension of the old reactors is essentially the only viable option, since the construction of new ones will take a considerable amount of time due to identifying suitable locations, which almost always should be preceded by government feasibility studies.
This is also evidenced by periodic safety reviews conducted by the state-run Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) with the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, a nuclear safety regulatory and policy-making body, Monday, concerning the planned closure of Kori 2, a 40-year-old nuclear reactor in Busan. Had the state-run energy firm not submitted its request, Kori 2 would have been closed April 8, 2023.
Ten old nuclear reactors are scheduled for closure by 2030. But they are expected to function as a key energy source to facilitate the low-carbon initiative, following strengthened maintenance work for safety. ...
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
Hold on, what are you saying? That Channel Four should be sold to a private buyer and that the private buyer completely change its model? What's the advantage for the buyer as opposed to just, you know, starting a new company with the "right" model?
Yes that's what I am saying, its model needs to evolve to compete online post-broadcasting instead of being the nation's fourth broadcasting channel. Isn't that blindingly obvious yet?
The advantage for the buyer? It has infrastructure, brand awareness, the rights it owns etc - but all that will get less valuable as time goes on and it gets left further and further behind, so its kind of now or never if you're going to do it, while there's still something valuable there.
Also (and this too is diminishing with time) it has a high slot on the EPG.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
I was but as it turns out I was wrong and very disappointed in him as I have said, though he may yet become leader and by the way there is no contest when it comes to Corbyn
Corbyn Derangement Syndrome triggers Whataboutery of the highest order.
Once again, Corbyn isn’t even a Labour MP, never mind Labour leader.
Get over it.
Given that the electorate's only alternative to having had Boris as PM for the last 2.5 years is having had Corbyn as PM for the last 2.5 years, then the comparison is fair.
Not so. The discussion was about Wales’ future vote: Corbo doesn’t come into it.
As I say, get over it.
It was nothing to do with Wales vote
Er, by Wales I meant you. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Something has to be done. This is something.
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
Hold on, what are you saying? That Channel Four should be sold to a private buyer and that the private buyer completely change its model? What's the advantage for the buyer as opposed to just, you know, starting a new company with the "right" model?
Yes that's what I am saying, its model needs to evolve to compete online post-broadcasting instead of being the nation's fourth broadcasting channel. Isn't that blindingly obvious yet?
The advantage for the buyer? It has infrastructure, brand awareness, the rights it owns etc - but all that will get less valuable as time goes on and it gets left further and further behind, so its kind of now or never if you're going to do it, while there's still something valuable there.
Frankly, no, it isn't obvious to me, which is why I'm asking. I'm sceptical still. C4 is making surpluses, so its not in a crisis. I understand that streaming is changing the landscape but I'm far from clear that this means the end of broadcast media, and if it does I'd be interested to know what is becoming of ITV and C5, what are they doing right now to plan for that future.
I'm also sceptical about this money. The alleged selling price is £1bn, which as I calculated a day or two about is about 10 hours' worth of government spending as a one-off windfall. The government has wasted multiples of that on overpriced PPE and equipment that was never suitable for the NHS during the pandemic. That's not an argument against taking the money, but it does show the scale of the numbers we're dealing with. And this sudden high-pressure "sell now before its too late!" is the kind of FOMO-inducing sales patter that makes me very defensive. Personally, when I get that kind of pressure in real life I tend to walk away without doing any transaction.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
iPlayer via Virgin cable has UHD for a fair few shows now.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
You seem to know an awful lot about this stuff. I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
How long is a piece of string....depends on your budget. But for "very black blacks", it has to be QLED or OLED (well there are new technologies if you have crazy money). But I don't think you will find a QLED or OLED less than 50".
Like so many industries, tellies are a globalised near duopoly in terms of who makes them *. Basically LG or Samsung make every high end panel (regardless of brand), so they dedicate the sizings.
* Yes there are cheap Chinese manufacturers of LCD panels these days, because LG and Samsung don't care about LCD anymore.
Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation. Nor has the government. The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
It's post like this that demonstrate why the BBC and Channel 4 are basically doomed. Merely observing reality (broadcast TV has already lost the young) is "BBC bashing". No amount of good will in New York will save them, as those New Yorkers contribute essentially nothing to the BBC and Channel 4 coffers.
I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
Netflix is really overpriced now, my subscription has just gone up to £15.99 a month and a lot of their stuff is trash. I don’t watch it that much.
BBC doing some really innovative stuff albeit not always on a high budget. Mood on BBC3 is edgy, excellent.
Channel 4 probably in the middle but hard to see the point of privatising it.
"Mood on BBC3 is edgy, excellent." - So you are the one viewer watching tractor racing. All the viewing figures show it has totally bombed. And I also don't think you are the target demographic.
The good people of Selcuk, Turkey, absolutely do not give the tiniest of fucks about Ramadan
Ephesus is hardly a place that is off the archaeological beaten track - that's about as mainstream as you can get as it's why Kuşadası gets all the cruise ships.
Selcuk is very Turkish. There’s about 5 tourists here
Ephesus was deserted! Which made it all the lovelier
Selcuk is one of my preferred retirement destinations, Mrs Eek however would prefer somewhere in Italy.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
iPlayer via Virgin cable has UHD for a fair few shows now.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Sorry but for most people and indeed most content 4k and proper HDR aren't worth the very significant additional costs.
Firstly because most people really wouldn't care and except for sport and for Premium Drama 4K and proper HDR just isn't required.
Er, what “significant extra costs” UHD TVs are standard nowadays.
It's funny how often leftists (including unions) are small-c conservative ("things must not change!"), and how often Conservatives are actually fairly radical ("we must have change!")
Channel 4 is just another example.
I'm not actually that concerned about Channel 4 - I think it'd be a going concern private or public, so why change things? The BBC is a very different matter - I just cannot see how that can continue to exist in the long term without radical change.
Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..
On transgender he said
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
On partygate
He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject
On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement
On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down
This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
You seem to know an awful lot about this stuff. I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
How long is a piece of string....depends on your budget. But for "very black blacks", it has to be QLED or OLED (well there are new technologies if you have crazy money). But I don't think you will find a QLED or OLED less than 50".
Like so many industries, tellies are a globalised near duopoly in terms of who makes them *. Basically LG or Samsung make every high end panel (regardless of brand), so they dedicate the sizings.
* Yes there are cheap Chinese manufacturers of LCD panels these days, because LG and Samsung don't care about LCD anymore.
Thanks. My old tv is a Pioneer Plasma, so I am some generations behind, but it has served me incredibly well.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
iPlayer via Virgin cable has UHD for a fair few shows now.
"Shows" seems awfully old-fashioned. I guess I'd use "Programmes" which is perhaps far worse. Is there a more modern term?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Sorry but for most people and indeed most content 4k and proper HDR aren't worth the very significant additional costs.
Firstly because most people really wouldn't care and except for sport and for Premium Drama 4K and proper HDR just isn't required.
Er, what “significant extra costs” UHD TVs are standard nowadays.
1080p tv's are very much in the minority now and normally the small sized ones. I won't be surprised if all the major brands just stop selling any shortly. I don't believe the big brands like Samsung, LG, Sony, even make them, they are just a cheap Chinese one from somebody like TCL they stick a brand label on.
Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation. Nor has the government. The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
It's post like this that demonstrate why the BBC and Channel 4 are basically doomed. Merely observing reality (broadcast TV has already lost the young) is "BBC bashing". No amount of good will in New York will save them, as those New Yorkers contribute essentially nothing to the BBC and Channel 4 coffers.
I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
I’m very interested in ideas for how the BBC could change, but the dominant tone on here is by people who dismiss the notion of public service or state owned broadcasting altogether.
So I just ignore them as (to my mind) bad faith debaters.
Anyway, my post was intended as a rebuttal to the idea that the BBC has no brand, nothing more.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
You seem to know an awful lot about this stuff. I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
On room-domination wall mount it, and play around with high quality screen savers so it looks like a Mondrian or an aquarium or something when its not on
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
As mentioned below, Channel 4 is publicly owned, not publicly funded.
This is for a reason. So it can be a UK Public Service/Commercial channel. This is what it was set up to achieve.
Now, there is argument that, because Channel 4 keeps so much of a domestic production companies skills base in business ( as a UK channel ) , then "freeing it" to become an even larger player would be a UK public interest. However, this doesn't really stack up, and is bound up with why so many people, including MP's and thinktankers, have previously rejected the "privatisation to become a global player" option, somewhat parallel to similar arguments on the BBC. There's no guarantee that becoming a global player will safeguard domestic jobs, skill base and specialised expertise at production companies to the same extent.
What Channel 4 really needs to retain its existing ownership structure - it was a set up as a public/private channel, and there's no logical interest to the government suporting if it's not - and revert to its original funding structure, with the money from ITV allowing it to be a genuinely adventurous public service channel beyond Channel 4 News once more.
*Having done all that*, for a government sincere about its best interests, rather than looking to dispose of what it perceives as a political irritant, with the figleaf of streaming-era commercialisation ; you could *then* very well look at changes, extensions, and widenings of its charter to allow it to compete better in the same current global streaming environment we're discussing.
Speaking to James O'Brien, Sir Keir said there is "no case for rejoining the EU" but Labour will "make it work".
He said: "We can't reverse Brexit. There's no case for rejoining the EU.
What's changed since 2016 then? Other than Labour being handed its arse in a large number of seats, like...
Never trust a politician.
We've got to do this from a position of principle. Did we agree that we would put this decision out to the public for a vote? Yes. Did we agree that we would accept the result? Yes. Have we got to accept the result? Yes. So, the first position is a matter of principle. Having done this, having got a result, we've got to accept it. Simply saying: ‘Well, it's better for us electorally 'if we do this or do that’ doesn't help. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2017
if we need to break the impasse, our options must include campaigning for a public vote – and nobody is ruling out Remain as an option. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2018
I don’t find those statements particularly contradictory.
But, now a much harder task: find two contradictory Boris statements. I dare you!
Wow, you really think that having a second vote with the defeated Remain option back on the ballot paper is "accepting" the result? OK then!
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
iPlayer via Virgin cable has UHD for a fair few shows now.
I’ve seen quite a few in UHD through Virgin cable. They tend to do them in UHD when the show suits it I think.
Full List:
9/11: Inside the President's War Room Attenborough's Life in Colour Attenborough's Wonder of Song Blue Planet II Chloe Doctor Who: Revolution of the Daleks Dynasties The Earthshot Prize: Repairing Our Planet The Girl Before The Green Planet His Dark Materials Life and Death in the Warehouse Mood Peaky Blinders, Series 6 A Perfect Planet The Pursuit of Love The Responder Ridley Road Seven Worlds, One Planet Showtrial The Tourist The Trick A Very British Scandal Vigil Wonders of the Celtic Deep As part of our trial, we also provided live streams in Ultra HD for both the UEFA Men's Euro 2020 and Wimbledon 2021.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Yes, I think you're right for specific programmes in the long run. However, live-streamed linear TV may have a future too. Radio is perhaps a guide to where that's heading. I know lots of people who have a radio station that they quite like (from Radio 4 to Smooth to Classic FM) on all day every day, so will count as "16 hours a day", but they only really listen intermittently. You can't do that with Netflix, which is based on the model of sitting down to watch something specific.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
With 5G, people will be absolutely able to continue to watch content on the go with ease.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already.
You seem to know an awful lot about this stuff. I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
On room-domination wall mount it, and play around with high quality screen savers so it looks like a Mondrian or an aquarium or something when its not on
You bloody heathen.
I will either wall mount against a dark wall and leave it off, or hide it in a cabinet. Would have to be a large cabinet, tho.
It's funny how often leftists (including unions) are small-c conservative ("things must not change!"), and how often Conservatives are actually fairly radical ("we must have change!")
If people would read things like Ofcom's Communication Market Report and Media Nations Report they could look at the data and think about this a bit, rather than simply reacting against every proposal. Very simply broadcast TV has a demographic problem, they are losing young viewers hand over fist to the newcomers, and unless they can gain them back in later life there is going to come a point where the likes of the BBC, Channel 4, and probably ITV as well, are no longer viable. They won't have the viewers to justify a licence fee, or enough advertising revenue to sustain their productions.
Now I don't know the answer, there might not even be one, but there sure as hell is a big problem in the making. Simply saying "no" to everything is not going to save the things people claim they love.
Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation. Nor has the government. The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
It's post like this that demonstrate why the BBC and Channel 4 are basically doomed. Merely observing reality (broadcast TV has already lost the young) is "BBC bashing". No amount of good will in New York will save them, as those New Yorkers contribute essentially nothing to the BBC and Channel 4 coffers.
I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
I’m very interested in ideas for how the BBC could change, but the dominant tone on here is by people who dismiss the notion of public service or state owned broadcasting altogether.
So I just ignore them as (to my mind) bad faith debaters.
Anyway, my post was intended as a rebuttal to the idea that the BBC has no brand, nothing more.
My core argument is always the licence fee is in the modern world a) totally unenforceable and b) totally outdated idea I have to pay a licence to watch telly, even if I don't watch the 4 BBC channels i.e. I only want to watch Sky Sports.
The debate is then how do you replace the licence fee. There are a range of options.
Comments
There was only one candidate who had any realistic chance of winning, and he won.
And no, I'm never going to "leave it there" until you stop telling me that I'm wrong about what I did and why. Telling someone that they didn't really vote for the party/candidate/leader they ACTUALLY VOTED FOR is one of the weirdest holes I've ever seen anyone dig themselves into.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
Or do you have the audaciousness to be saying its a good thing that people are obliged to pay for the BBC just because they want to watch a competitor live?
I am still haunted by the stories (apparently true) of American military truck drivers playing “gook hockey” in Vietnam
The idea was to speed down a highway as fast as possible and at the perfect moment kick open a door so as to hit a pedestrian, injuring or killing them
Whoever hit the most locals, won that round of “gook hockey”
These were previously civilised American males, who got used to brutal cruelty and death
So that story out of Ukraine might well be fake news, but it is certainly not outwith the known behaviour of men during war
The old model is dying. do something, or die with it.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and there's a large bus coming your way you can either move out of its way or stand paralysed in the headlights hoping the world moves out of its way to save you. I prefer doing something over nothing in that situation, if you don't fine but don't be upset when the BBC etc continue to wither and die.
If you have a better, alternative, something then suggest it. Otherwise this something wins by default as being the only something on the table when the status quo is no longer sustainable.
Firstly because most people really wouldn't care and except for sport and for Premium Drama 4K and proper HDR just isn't required.
Also, we are talking future vision here, where CH4 future vision is a personalised recommendation system for 4oD, just wow...wow....amazing. 3 years time they will have what has been standard for 10 years by then.
I was referring to how the industry is resistant to technological change not the BBC. It is. The switch from Black and White to colour was problematic to UK TV. There was alot of resistance to it. You feel it is nonsense, fine, but what I say is borne out by how this industry behaves historically and continues to do so.
The model of funding TV stations is changing as well. The BBC are failing to embrace that and they are, quite frankly, miles behind the likes of Netflix and other streaming services when it comes to delivery
The BBC thought the buy to own model was the future and invested in BBC Store, which died a death rapidly. The BBC has hardly embraced technological change, technological change has been forced on it. The same with Channel 4, the film industry and the music industry. Any change is seen as a threat to it.
The BBC recently brought back BBC Three and its ratings are dire. There was little demand for it. The BBC, once again, clueless. Even with BBC Three shows being regularly plugged on BBC One and Two and on its website the ratings are poor.
Personally for me I do not care about the change to the funding of the BBC solving any global broadcast challenge. I just think the license fee is inherently unfair and have done for many years. I was arguing this on the old uk.media.tv.misc as far back as the nineties. Pay for any public service obligation (local radio for example) and the transmission network through general tax and let them raise their own revenue. also allow anyone to bid for the public service broadcast funding.
Realistically the state isn't best placed to generate the alternative funding sources - and left to its own devices under its current ownership their plans for the future are embarrassing at best, so an alternative ownership is needed to get the funding in place for the future. The two are intrinsically linked.
I felt some scepticism about that one too - though there have been numerous similar reports.
When I said vox pops, I actually meant just that (as opposed to phone intercepts):
https://twitter.com/ua_parliament/status/1510524156051398656
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1511696663508705291
Tomorrow Ursula von der Leyen the European Commission President is travelling to Kyiv. The Slovak prime minister Eduard Heger has decided to join in, as he missed out visiting last month with the Czech, Polish and Slovenian PMs.
Perhaps it is a timetabling clash?
We've got to do this from a position of principle. Did we agree that we would put this decision out to the public for a vote? Yes. Did we agree that we would accept the result? Yes. Have we got to accept the result? Yes. So, the first position is a matter of principle. Having done this, having got a result, we've got to accept it. Simply saying: ‘Well, it's better for us electorally 'if we do this or do that’ doesn't help. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2017
if we need to break the impasse, our options must include campaigning for a public vote – and nobody is ruling out Remain as an option. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2018
Ephesus was deserted! Which made it all the lovelier
At present my fixed rate offer, which was prominently offered, is 50% higher than the price-capped variable tariff.
You need a very good known trend in your usage to justify it.
Both a subscription model and ad-funded are of course commercial models and there may well be room for both in the market so I'm not sure why you say "Commercial TV has failed". And as I noted above, there is probably a large number of people who would put up with adverts in order to get "free" tv.
Be against government ownership of TV companies (I am) by all means but your strange arguments around "Commercial TV" and the streaming services does your case no good if you conflate as @eek notes, ownership and business models.
https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/armenian-forces-attack-azerbaijani-positions-in-aghdam
The advantage for the buyer? It has infrastructure, brand awareness, the rights it owns etc - but all that will get less valuable as time goes on and it gets left further and further behind, so its kind of now or never if you're going to do it, while there's still something valuable there.
Do most people care about 4k/HDR? If your favourite programme is Corrie or Emmerdale, still dominating the charts, do you mind if it's not 4k?
Nor has the government.
The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
"#Ukraine: 2 days ago, the Operational Command "East" of the Ukrainian Army posted video that claimed to show "over 40" Russian vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian Artillery fire on a Russian rear base.
We did not publish it, as we couldn't verify the claim or the target. However...
It actually turns out that this claim was legitimate, with at least 35 vehicles totally destroyed or damaged; mostly supply or fuel trucks, but with BMP/T-72 variant also. This is a serious blow."
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1511672385753255940
I noticed the same in Sanliurfa, which is a very different part of Turkey and extremely devout and conservative - because it is the alleged birthplace of Abraham
Last time I was there - 15 years ago - almost half the women were in full on burqas and the like. Face veils. All black
I saw maybe one burqa this time. No other veiled women. Lots of women without headscarves. Bars selling booze (not many, but there were none before). Also people openly eating and drinking during the day in Ramadan
And here in west Turkey Ramadan basically is not happening. Next to me there are 70 old Turkish guys all drinking tea and coffee and playing dominoes - and young women are drinking wine behind me
It’s an encouraging thought in a discouraging world. We may have seen the worst of ultra orthodox conservative Islam. Its moment has passed
🙏
What I don't understand about the discussion on PB is:
what would constitute a good outcome in terms of contents and output
and
what is the evidence for all the options as to which way is best to get there.
The owners need to find another business model as C4's is dying. Yes its running a profit today, I don't deny that, but its not going to in five or ten years time if nothing changes.
You're like somebody in 2005 saying that Blockbuster is making a profit from its video stores so it has no reason to consider changing.
But, now a much harder task: find two contradictory Boris statements. I dare you!
Horse riding. Fountain pens. Vinyl records
But for those so in favour of subscription services, I do suspect this will end in the consumer getting ripped off by avaricious corporations. How many subscriptions will I need? I like my football, so that means Sky, BT and Amazon for now, though that's likely to expand. I like music, so that means Spotify. Netflix has enough good stuff on to pay for. And then there's Disney and others that I'm less familiar with. Ten years down the line, how much is it going to cost me to buy what I want to watch? Quite a lot, I'd guess. Okay for those who can afford it.
By contrast, the licence fee seems pretty good value for money.
And we are talking about the immediate future. 43" 4k / HDR tellies are now £250, they are absolutely bottom end standard tv. Do you get the full benefit below 50", no, but next cycle it will be 50" 4k tellies will be the next "standard" size. So increasingly yes, 4k is where will be at.
And that is why Netflix, Sky, Amazon (and YouTube creators) have moved to this. They have adapted to the future already. And for things like sports and movie, 4k / HDR, makes a massive difference.
Its like saying well people used to watch shows in 480p on a CRT, they were happy weren't they...now they watch them in 1080p and wonder how they ever watched 480p....with 50" tellies, which will be the normal, the same reaction will be for 4k vs 1080p.
As I said there is likely a large number of people who are happy with free commercial TV. Let's say they are ancient, decrepit 50-yr olds. That is still 20-30 years away so plenty of money to be made.
Russians began using MOBILE CREMATORIUMS in #Mariupol to burn bodies of slaughtered Ukrainians en masse. This is a catastrophe. And we will never learn the true scale of it
https://twitter.com/lapatina_/status/1511659934081028102
I’m thinking of buying a new tv. What should I go for, ie spec?
I really only watch tv for films, so picture quality (very black blacks etc) is v important.
I’m alarmed at the idea of 50”. I hate it when a screen dominates a room.
Boris will probably visit Kyiv at some point, but the material support given by the UK outweighs any photo op.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1511667812137377804
As for your TV argument if the new default size is 50" why is LGs biggest new product in the TV space this year a 42" OLED model (something they delayed from 2021 to ensure both stock is available and a suitably big announcement can be made once sales begin).
Ho hum. Northern Cyprus? Kyrenia?
Nonetheless I honestly sense a trend back to secularism. Everything feels more relaxed - and I’m also talking of conservative Eastern Turkey here
I reckon maybe 50% of women in Urfa are wearing headscarves. In 2006 it was 90% minimum
That may however be a “Gobekli Tepe” effect. The site has brought much tourism and new money to the city, perhaps changing it?
Macron (EC-RE): 27%
Le Pen (RN-ID): 23.5% (+0.5)
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 17.5% (+1)
Zemmour (REC-NI): 9% (-0.5)
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 9% (-0.5)
...
+/- vs. 1-5 April 2022
Fieldwork: 2-6 April 2022
Sample size: 3,010
As well as precisely how public service elements like Ch4 news and Film4 would be protected or perhaps ring fenced out.
But they haven’t, just decided they want $1bn bob which not a soul will notice, and a more compliant broadcast media.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/04/419_326867.html
The incoming Yoon Suk-yeol administration will likely extend the lifespan of 10 aging nuclear reactors to realize the president-elect's campaign pledge to make nuclear power account for up to 35 percent of the country's energy source, up from the current 29.4 percent, according to the presidential transition committee Wednesday.
The extension of the old reactors is essentially the only viable option, since the construction of new ones will take a considerable amount of time due to identifying suitable locations, which almost always should be preceded by government feasibility studies.
This is also evidenced by periodic safety reviews conducted by the state-run Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) with the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, a nuclear safety regulatory and policy-making body, Monday, concerning the planned closure of Kori 2, a 40-year-old nuclear reactor in Busan. Had the state-run energy firm not submitted its request, Kori 2 would have been closed April 8, 2023.
Ten old nuclear reactors are scheduled for closure by 2030. But they are expected to function as a key energy source to facilitate the low-carbon initiative, following strengthened maintenance work for safety.
...
https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1511603205100220416?s=21&t=l9lIGENQUWki1JbJckbovg
I'm sceptical still. C4 is making surpluses, so its not in a crisis. I understand that streaming is changing the landscape but I'm far from clear that this means the end of broadcast media, and if it does I'd be interested to know what is becoming of ITV and C5, what are they doing right now to plan for that future.
I'm also sceptical about this money. The alleged selling price is £1bn, which as I calculated a day or two about is about 10 hours' worth of government spending as a one-off windfall. The government has wasted multiples of that on overpriced PPE and equipment that was never suitable for the NHS during the pandemic. That's not an argument against taking the money, but it does show the scale of the numbers we're dealing with. And this sudden high-pressure "sell now before its too late!" is the kind of FOMO-inducing sales patter that makes me very defensive. Personally, when I get that kind of pressure in real life I tend to walk away without doing any transaction.
BBC doing some really innovative stuff albeit not always on a high budget. Mood on BBC3 is edgy, excellent.
Channel 4 probably in the middle but hard to see the point of privatising it.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1511672385753255940
He looks like a fraggle-toothed paedophile, but you know he’d be a laugh down the pub.
Unlike real remainiacs like that long-haired professor whose name I have forgotten.
Like so many industries, tellies are a globalised near duopoly in terms of who makes them *. Basically LG or Samsung make every high end panel (regardless of brand), so they dedicate the sizings.
* Yes there are cheap Chinese manufacturers of LCD panels these days, because LG and Samsung don't care about LCD anymore.
I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/features/uhd-connected-tv/#/Notification
Channel 4 is just another example.
I'm not actually that concerned about Channel 4 - I think it'd be a going concern private or public, so why change things? The BBC is a very different matter - I just cannot see how that can continue to exist in the long term without radical change.
On transgender he said
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
On partygate
He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject
On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement
On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down
This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible
Which institutions are you suggesting? Presumably not C4?
So I just ignore them as (to my mind) bad faith debaters.
Anyway, my post was intended as a rebuttal to the idea that the BBC has no brand, nothing more.
This is for a reason. So it can be a UK Public Service/Commercial channel. This is what it was set up to achieve.
Now, there is argument that, because Channel 4 keeps so much of a domestic production companies skills base in business ( as a UK channel ) , then "freeing it" to become an even larger player would be a UK public interest. However, this doesn't really stack up, and is bound up with why so many people, including MP's and thinktankers, have previously rejected the "privatisation to become a global player" option, somewhat parallel to similar arguments on the BBC. There's no guarantee that becoming a global player will safeguard domestic jobs, skill base and specialised expertise at production companies to the same extent.
What Channel 4 really needs to retain its existing ownership structure - it was a set up as a public/private channel, and there's no logical interest to the government suporting if it's not - and revert to its original funding structure, with the money from ITV allowing it to be a genuinely adventurous public service channel beyond Channel 4 News once more.
*Having done all that*, for a government sincere about its best interests, rather than looking to dispose of what it perceives as a political irritant, with the figleaf of streaming-era commercialisation ; you could *then* very well look at changes, extensions, and widenings of its charter to allow it to compete better in the same current global streaming environment we're discussing.
Full List:
9/11: Inside the President's War Room
Attenborough's Life in Colour
Attenborough's Wonder of Song
Blue Planet II
Chloe
Doctor Who: Revolution of the Daleks
Dynasties
The Earthshot Prize: Repairing Our Planet
The Girl Before
The Green Planet
His Dark Materials
Life and Death in the Warehouse
Mood
Peaky Blinders, Series 6
A Perfect Planet
The Pursuit of Love
The Responder
Ridley Road
Seven Worlds, One Planet
Showtrial
The Tourist
The Trick
A Very British Scandal
Vigil
Wonders of the Celtic Deep
As part of our trial, we also provided live streams in Ultra HD for both the UEFA Men's Euro 2020 and Wimbledon 2021.
I will either wall mount against a dark wall and leave it off, or hide it in a cabinet. Would have to be a large cabinet, tho.
https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/status/1511633228028952583?cxt=HHwWjoC-ta6as_opAAAA
Now I don't know the answer, there might not even be one, but there sure as hell is a big problem in the making. Simply saying "no" to everything is not going to save the things people claim they love.
The debate is then how do you replace the licence fee. There are a range of options.