Sunak sees a colossal drop in his favourability ratings – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.1 -
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.2 -
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?1 -
The money does still need to come from somewhere, though.HYUFD said:
Which is exactly what Theresa May proposed in 2017. Everyone would get to keep £100,000 in assets but all of their assets over £100k, including their home, would be liable for their social care costs, whether residential or domestic.BartholomewRoberts said:
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.NerysHughes said:
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?BartholomewRoberts said:
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.NerysHughes said:
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?CorrectHorseBattery said:
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announcedCorrectHorseBattery said:
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFLBig_G_NorthWales said:
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the priceEndillion said: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.
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
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.
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
And if you are not taking it from inheritances, you must be taking it from workers' pockets.
At some point said workers might be less than 100% happy with the trade.1 -
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.Benpointer said:Holy f*ck! Just got my email from British Gas.
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.0 -
That's surely not the case in reality [edit]. Broadcasting is quite heavily regulated by a not very arms length arrangement given the way the Conservatives have been so heavily engaged in ensuring their own chair for Ofcom.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?1 -
Total verified Russian kit losses go through two and half thousand.
2515 confirmed bits of lost Russian kits, including 434 tanks.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html0 -
Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.1
-
Maybe one or two PBers will find this the best story for some time; the perfect mix of heartwarming and 'I slightly am glad it is someone else'; classic pics
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60995514
0 -
I have now checked Octopus.MattW said:
I haven't had mine yet from Octopus.Benpointer said:Holy f*ck! Just got my email from British Gas.
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.
I trust you took readings on March 31st/1st April to prevent you paying the new rate on gas that you used before if they mis-estimated.
It sounds like time to consider a house battery or a diversion device if you have not done one.
Are you on an electric car? If so, special tariffs may be available.
They are suggesting an increase in my monthly payment from £91 to £97, which I bet my bottom dollar will change again later. OTOH my big rise will be gas c/h next winter, and my CH is pretty much off now.
(Interesting that we are still exporting 6% of our generation to France if I read this chart correctly, including some I think coming in from Ireland.)
0 -
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.0 -
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?1 -
Film4 isn't in HD on Freeview....movies not in HD.....just what I want on my massive OLED telly. Fires up random YouTube, oh look, 4K.....BartholomewRoberts said:
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.1 -
Heavy artillery on civilian flats, schools, shops and theatres = a bombing campaign.Foxy said:
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.Dura_Ace said:
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.Nigelb said:Vox pops in Russia are disturbing.
https://twitter.com/GicAriana/status/1511571664462561283
Horrible as it is it is a long-established element of conflict. Not to deny that there have been atrocities (I have no idea whatsoever) but a bombing campaign doesn't necessarily mean that there have been.0 -
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?0 -
China: almost as disturbing as Russia, but in a more sci-fi way.FrancisUrquhart said:Shanghai residents go to their balconies to sing & protest lack of supplies. A drone appears: “Please comply w covid restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”
https://twitter.com/aliceysu/status/1511558828802068481?s=20&t=QuhaZTYSY9UKJcsjGh16hQ0 -
Absolutely right. They both need to be freed up. Broadcast as a model is changing and they need to be able to respond.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?1 -
Long battles are for getting rid of effing Boris.IshmaelZ said:
Also people don't have "long battles" with diseases, they have the disease for a long time and die of it. Long battles are with Ukrainians.Farooq said:
I hate to be so blunt about this, but the world is a better place without him in it.williamglenn said:Russian nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky is dead after a long battle with covid.
0 -
Any insights/experience on house battery systems? We looked into it a couple of years back for our solar panels, but there was a very wide range of options and suppliers, hard to pick out a good one/work out suitable capacity (I guess a good supplier would do this for you). We've instead tried hard to optimise our appliance use, but there are plenty of things it is more convenient to run after dark...MattW said:
I haven't had mine yet from Octopus.Benpointer said:Holy f*ck! Just got my email from British Gas.
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.
I trust you took readings on March 31st/1st April to prevent you paying the new rate on gas that you used before if they mis-estimated.
It sounds like time to consider a house battery or a diversion device if you have not done one.
Are you on an electric car? If so, special tariffs may be available.
Diverter no use to us as no hot tank. Our energy bill is somewhat less eye-watering (~£2400 according to latest direct debit change; up from ~£840 before this all kicked off, so similar % change)0 -
Thanks. Working it out based on our past usage using the capped rates it comes to £3,620 so yes, they've assumed an extra 9% of usage... for no reason whatsoever.CarlottaVance said:
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.Benpointer said:Holy f*ck! Just got my email from British Gas.
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.
But even so.0 -
That intercept feels fake though. I can just about believe Russian thugs are going around chasing children and shooting them in the legs 'for fun'... but bragging to their wives about it on the phone? Nah.Foxy said:
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.Dura_Ace said:
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.Nigelb said:Vox pops in Russia are disturbing.
https://twitter.com/GicAriana/status/15115716644625612830 -
I got a 4k monitor recently, almost the entire internet now looks like blurry crap to me.FrancisUrquhart said:Film4 isn't in HD on Freeview....movies not in HD.....just what I want on my massive OLED telly. Fires up random YouTube, oh look, 4K.....
0 -
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.2 -
Recently I have been up to 5+ hours a day with BBC WS on background. When I plumb in the new "Thou Shalt Log In To IPlayer" directive, I can have a bit of R4 back.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.NickPalmer said:
Not entirely correct, according to the BARB figures I posted a couple of days ago. Apparently linear TV plus iplayer is watched for between 1 hour/day (youngsters) to 6 hours per day (oldies). I suspect that includes a lot of "having it on in the background", but soaps and the 6 o'clock news continue to dominate.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.0 -
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
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.3 -
Have you got some settings wrong? Or did you get a super cheapo 4k one?glw said:
I got a 4k monitor recently, almost the entire internet now looks like blurry crap to me.FrancisUrquhart said:Film4 isn't in HD on Freeview....movies not in HD.....just what I want on my massive OLED telly. Fires up random YouTube, oh look, 4K.....
0 -
MattW said:
I haven't had mine yet from Octopus.Benpointer said:Holy f*ck! Just got my email from British Gas.
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.
I trust you took readings on March 31st/1st April to prevent you paying the new rate on gas that you used before if they mis-estimated.
It sounds like time to consider a house battery or a diversion device if you have not done one.
Are you on an electric car? If so, special tariffs may be available.
Thanks. Yes submitted a meter reading on 31st March and have the photos. We don't have an electric car - really do too few miles to justify it atm.
Batteries may be an option. Issue is we expect to move to downsize in 5 or so years so we won't get the payback, although it adds to the value of the house I guess.
Anyone got any recommendations about house batteries? Use with our existing 4kW PV or install additional PV? (We have the roof space.)0 -
There are some triplets live on the road behind me - three four(?) year olds, and also their six(?) year old older brother. They are unbearably lovely. I see them most mornings on the school run. The utter joy the four of them take in each others' company is wonderful to see.algarkirk said:Maybe one or two PBers will find this the best story for some time; the perfect mix of heartwarming and 'I slightly am glad it is someone else'; classic pics
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-609955140 -
Isn't it HD for everything except local news? The BBC is HD on its primary listing on Freeview. Where Sky put it... well, Sky aren't exactly a neutral party.BartholomewRoberts said:
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Providing local news broadcasts is the sort of thing public broadcasting supports. Netflix or Sky would never do such things. But then I think Nadine Dorries would rather you get your news from her social media accounts!1 -
The 'battle' metaphor when dealing with sickness is very overused and is quite a destructive way of looking at your body. Even a 'victory' in such a battle leaves one weakened and vulnerable to the next 'battle'. We should always see the process as reclaiming our health.IshmaelZ said:
Also people don't have "long battles" with diseases, they have the disease for a long time and die of it. Long battles are with Ukrainians.Farooq said:
I hate to be so blunt about this, but the world is a better place without him in it.williamglenn said:Russian nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky is dead after a long battle with covid.
0 -
I really am at a loss to understand just how consumers mitigate this gas crisis, and even governments who can only really assist at the marginsBenpointer said:
Thanks. Working it out based on our past usage using the capped rates it comes to £3,620 so yes, they've assumed an extra 9% of usage... for no reason whatsoever.CarlottaVance said:
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.Benpointer said:Holy f*ck! Just got my email from British Gas.
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.
But even so.
Consumers will react though by thinking every time they put on the heating if it is absolutely necessary, others will consider migrating from gas cooking to electric, and of course the next 6 months will see demand for heating drop due to the spring and summer seasons
I assume market forces will come into play as gas demand falls, not only here but across Europe and beyond, gas prices should fall and over the medium term the transition to green energy will see gas diminish as a source of energy much like coal has
My son in law has just contacted me to say his energy bankers orders has risen another £100 per month1 -
Nothing wrong with your monitor; most of the internet is blurry crap.glw said:
I got a 4k monitor recently, almost the entire internet now looks like blurry crap to me.FrancisUrquhart said:Film4 isn't in HD on Freeview....movies not in HD.....just what I want on my massive OLED telly. Fires up random YouTube, oh look, 4K.....
2 -
Channel 4 is freer to respond in public ownership than if it has to answer to shareholders.Taz said:
Absolutely right. They both need to be freed up. Broadcast as a model is changing and they need to be able to respond.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?3 -
As I pointed out earlier the money is coming instead from the National Insurance rise now Boris has capped liabilities of assets for social care at £86k.rcs1000 said:
The money does still need to come from somewhere, though.HYUFD said:
Which is exactly what Theresa May proposed in 2017. Everyone would get to keep £100,000 in assets but all of their assets over £100k, including their home, would be liable for their social care costs, whether residential or domestic.BartholomewRoberts said:
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.NerysHughes said:
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?BartholomewRoberts said:
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.NerysHughes said:
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?CorrectHorseBattery said:
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announcedCorrectHorseBattery said:
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFLBig_G_NorthWales said:
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the priceEndillion said: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.
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
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.
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
And if you are not taking it from inheritances, you must be taking it from workers' pockets.
At some point said workers might be less than 100% happy with the trade.
However the rise is focused on higher earners, with those earning more than £100k seeing the biggest NI rise. Workers earning under £34k will actually see a cut in the NI they pay from the changes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-609961740 -
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.0 -
I would comment that if HMG can get 1 billion from selling Channel 4 then do so as broadcast media in its present form has a poor futureTaz said:
Absolutely right. They both need to be freed up. Broadcast as a model is changing and they need to be able to respond.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
I should say I never watch it anyway0 -
I agree with you there. Privitisation alone will not save Channel 4, just as maintaining the BBC licence fee will not save it. And obviously Dorries is incompetent.bondegezou said:https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplan
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
The problem is that in both cases what is likely to be needed to preserve what is best about the BBC and Channel 4 involves a huge amount of change, and there is little evidence that either entity is up for that.0 -
AGAIN.....nobody arguing against selling off is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....yes we know Netflix etc is here, but what are the proposals.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
I am not saying selling it off is necessarily the right move, but no change is not an answer.
You linked to their plans for 2025, and its a joke. Buzz word salad, a commitment to spend all of £30 million on some programmes 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.
That's not a plan to compete with 2025 media landscape, that a plan to compete with 2010 landscape.2 -
I think good writing makes all the difference. After you've got a decent to good budget for a drama (even if it's very effect-focused), you can afford good talent and visuals, then the money spent above that just becomes numbers. Britbox has started commissioning drama, and they made a frothy series called 'Hotel Portofino' - great in terms of visuals, actors, costumes, but the writing was 2nd rate.Stuartinromford said:
In a way, that's the point. To play the money game against US giants is to lose.glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
Maybe British creatives can only win by continuing to play their game- less product, lower budget, telling stories in an intangibly British way. There's reasonable evidence that works and a sufficiency of Americans will pay to watch it as well.
A bit like the way that lower league football clubs often thrive better without being taken over by a rich benefactor.0 -
Text is perfect, so is anything vector based, but you soon discover that most websites are not serving images or icons that are up-to-scratch.FrancisUrquhart said:
Have you got some settings wrong? Or did you get a super cheapo 4k one?glw said:
I got a 4k monitor recently, almost the entire internet now looks like blurry crap to me.FrancisUrquhart said:Film4 isn't in HD on Freeview....movies not in HD.....just what I want on my massive OLED telly. Fires up random YouTube, oh look, 4K.....
0 -
I have no problem myself.glw said:
Text is perfect, so is anything vector based, but you soon discover that most websites are not serving images or icons that are up-to-scratch.FrancisUrquhart said:
Have you got some settings wrong? Or did you get a super cheapo 4k one?glw said:
I got a 4k monitor recently, almost the entire internet now looks like blurry crap to me.FrancisUrquhart said:Film4 isn't in HD on Freeview....movies not in HD.....just what I want on my massive OLED telly. Fires up random YouTube, oh look, 4K.....
0 -
25 years in prison for the former leader of the Lord's Resistance Army at the ICC:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) today imposed a 25-year-sentence on Dominic Ongwen, a former leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The sentence marks an important milestone in the search for justice for victims of the grave international crimes committed by this notorious armed group in northern Uganda.
At the sentencing hearing, the court explained that it weighed a number of considerations, including the breadth and gravity of the crimes and Ongwen’s culpability, but also the fact he was abducted as a child, forced to join the LRA, and lost any opportunity to become a “valuable member of his community.” Ongwen – the first LRA leader to be held accountable – had been found guilty of 61 war crimes and crimes against humanity that included hundreds killed, child victims, and sexual violence.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/05/06/icc-sentences-lra-leader-25-years#:~:text=The International Criminal Court (ICC,armed group in northern Uganda.0 -
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?FrancisUrquhart said:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/we-own-channel-4-sell-off-isnt-a-done-deal-armando-iannucci
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.2 -
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
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/15116914196474552372 -
C4 makes a profit which it puts into future programming. All that populist rubbish funds the interesting good stuff. Same way that provincial theatres cross-subsidise from panto season to the rest of the year. ITV still does it a bit, albeit nowhere near as much as in the past.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
What C4 doesn't currently do is distribute profits. That's the elegance of the status quo. Capitalist ingenuity forced to do something capitalism wouldn't normally touch. Whether it's Thatcherism subverted or Thatcherism doing what she wanted but rarely achieved, I don't know.
And if the theory is that C4 can do the good stuff it currently does, and be better and give a reasonable steam of cash as a return to whoever stumped up £1 billion for it... I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd like some clarity about how it does that.2 -
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.1 -
If you don't think CH4 or BBC need to change given the rapidly shifting globalised streaming world well I can't help you.FF43 said:
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?FrancisUrquhart said:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/we-own-channel-4-sell-off-isnt-a-done-deal-armando-iannucci
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.2 -
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, and just defer to we can't change like that and never produce any coherent alternative.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
They are ultimately signing their own death warrants if they try to carry on like this for the next 5-10 years.3 -
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions0 -
But why THIS change?FrancisUrquhart said:
If you don't think CH4 or BBC need to change given the rapidly shifting globalised streaming world well I can't help you.FF43 said:
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?FrancisUrquhart said:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/we-own-channel-4-sell-off-isnt-a-done-deal-armando-iannucci
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.
We need to do something. This is something. <--- this remains stupid logic.3 -
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.bondegezou said:
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
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.
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.1 -
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.1 -
If C4 is privatised, it'll head more left and against the gov't I think, that's where the audience is.2
-
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!0 -
See also 1997 and 2019 when previously 'safe' Tory and Labour seats were lost.Applicant said:
Indeed. See: Scotland at Westminster since 2010. Seats are only safe - and the top two are only the top two - for as long as the voters decide they are.agingjb2 said:FPTP tends to give us stability, except when it doesn't.
Though it tends to only happen in landslide years and even then the ultra safe seats survive0 -
They will be able to adapt, sink or swim, without clinging on to the failed mantras and funding of the past.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
When people debated the licence fee when I was a child the alternative imagined was commercial TV. The reality is there isn't much of a future anymore either for the licence fee or commercial TV - both have been surpassed by better, newer models.
If they won't adapt, then they deserve to wither and die. But give them the chance to at least try to adapt.1 -
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said: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
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/15116914196474552375 -
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.1 -
It is on Virgin now, I noticed a few days ago - I'm not sure when it changed but it must have been since the Euros as that would have been the last time I watched BBC1 live.BartholomewRoberts said:
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Essentially, the only live TV I ever watch on a TV is sport or the occasional quiz show if I happen to be near a TV when it's on. But streaming still isn't good enough for live sport - the picture quality on Amazon football or tennis matches is obviously not right on a biggish TV.0 -
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!1 -
So you're saying there's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except for the difference...?BartholomewRoberts said:
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.bondegezou said:
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
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.
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.0 -
"without clinging on to the failed mantras and funding of the past" - they are profitable today, right now, with The Crown and Clarkson's Farm rampant on the streaming services so something is going right.BartholomewRoberts said:
They will be able to adapt, sink or swim, without clinging on to the failed mantras and funding of the past.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
When people debated the licence fee when I was a child the alternative imagined was commercial TV. The reality is there isn't much of a future anymore either for the licence fee or commercial TV - both have been surpassed by better, newer models.
If they won't adapt, then they deserve to wither and die. But give them the chance to at least try to adapt.
"isn't much of a future for....commercial TV" - well obvs Netflix and Amazon are commercial tv stations. In addition, there might be a substantial number of people who are willing to accept adverts in return for "free" tv.
I think Channel 4 (and the Beeb) should be privatised but for goodness sake keep it to the political ideological arguments (ie the state has no business running these things) rather than spurious "proofs" of failed or inferior business models which manifestly aren't failing or inferior.0 -
Good news.MattW said:25 years in prison for the former leader of the Lord's Resistance Army at the ICC:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) today imposed a 25-year-sentence on Dominic Ongwen, a former leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The sentence marks an important milestone in the search for justice for victims of the grave international crimes committed by this notorious armed group in northern Uganda.
At the sentencing hearing, the court explained that it weighed a number of considerations, including the breadth and gravity of the crimes and Ongwen’s culpability, but also the fact he was abducted as a child, forced to join the LRA, and lost any opportunity to become a “valuable member of his community.” Ongwen – the first LRA leader to be held accountable – had been found guilty of 61 war crimes and crimes against humanity that included hundreds killed, child victims, and sexual violence.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/05/06/icc-sentences-lra-leader-25-years#:~:text=The International Criminal Court (ICC,armed group in northern Uganda.
It's perhaps a sad reflection on my state of mind that the presence of "Lords" and "ICC" in the first sentence made me think this was somehow cricket related and thinking that was a harsh sentence for any kind of cricket-related hooliganary!0 -
The issue with Channel 4 being publicly owned is…0
-
For @BR a subscription service somehow makes those services non-commercial.bondegezou said:
So you're saying there's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except for the difference...?BartholomewRoberts said:
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.bondegezou said:
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
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.
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.0 -
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.Farooq said:
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.Applicant said:
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.Farooq said: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.
@Applicant, you're just wrong, sorry.
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?
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.0 -
You sure you didn't mean cats of arseholes ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Have to admit hybrid working is fun.Pulpstar said:My meeting was comical this morning. We're back in the office all face to face, but I was in the boardroom on my own on TEAMS because my boss and the engineering director both have covid, and near the end the builders doing my bosses' extension cut through my his internet cable
!!
Really enjoy seeing the pets of my colleagues.
Seen so many arseholes of cats over the last two years.0 -
I think ultimately their hatred of Boris / Brexit will still have these people don their Polly Trademarked nose pegs and vote against Boris.MaxPB said:
No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.williamglenn said: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
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/15116914196474552370 -
Dogma is bad on both sides.Farooq said:
It doesn't fit some people's ideologyCorrectHorseBattery said:The issue with Channel 4 being publicly owned is…
Some things should not to be publicly owned, others should. Let's stop being so ideological0 -
Thank you Nadine.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.0 -
There are far better things for Governments to be doing?CorrectHorseBattery said:The issue with Channel 4 being publicly owned is…
0 -
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.1 -
What exactly does the Government do with Channel 4?MarqueeMark said:
There are far better things for Governments to be doing?CorrectHorseBattery said:The issue with Channel 4 being publicly owned is…
0 -
The good people of Selcuk, Turkey, absolutely do not give the tiniest of fucks about Ramadan
2 -
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.Farooq said:
You're still trying to categorise me as either a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim.Applicant said:
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.Farooq said:
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.Applicant said:
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.Farooq said: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.
@Applicant, you're just wrong, sorry.
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?
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.
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.0 -
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-reverse-brexit-make-it-work/
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.0 -
Not compete against Amazon and Netflix, clearly.CorrectHorseBattery said:
What exactly does the Government do with Channel 4?MarqueeMark said:
There are far better things for Governments to be doing?CorrectHorseBattery said:The issue with Channel 4 being publicly owned is…
0 -
Even Muslims are Shia or Sunni, the Protestant v Roman Catholic divide of Islam!Farooq said:
You're still trying to categorise me as either a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim.Applicant said:
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.Farooq said:
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.Applicant said:
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.Farooq said: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.
@Applicant, you're just wrong, sorry.
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?
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.
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.0 -
What comes after this war?
And interesting read from an exiled Russian intellectual. The Russian Federation falls apart. Muscovy and a separate St Petersburg state, and then east of the Urals fragments.
https://the.ink/p/is-this-how-russia-ends?s=r1 -
What's changed since 2016 then? Other than Labour being handed its arse in a large number of seats, like...CorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-reverse-brexit-make-it-work/
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.2 -
Westminster refurbishment estimated to cost £22b. That's a lot of channel4s. Perhaps we could make saving there and a few other places. Heck the Brexit £350m/wk Brexit dividend Boris promised should pay for Ch4 before the end of the month.0
-
I seem to recall cheques were going to be ended in, what, 2016?solarflare said: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!0 -
Johnson ''I don't think biological men should be competing in female sporting events''
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1511676622251905034?s=20&t=EBiJgNywJ-NSu8O27swnhg1 -
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?2 -
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:
What exactly does the Government do with Channel 4?MarqueeMark said:
There are far better things for Governments to be doing?CorrectHorseBattery said:The issue with Channel 4 being publicly owned is…
3 -
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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.2 -
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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...3 -
Boris should sell his special plane and drop plans for a new royal yacht if he is serious about saving money. Are they on the agenda?2
-
Except for why its broken, yes.bondegezou said:
So you're saying there's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except for the difference...?BartholomewRoberts said:
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.bondegezou said:
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.BartholomewRoberts said:
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
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.
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.
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?-1 -
Something has to be done. This is something.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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.0 -
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.bondegezou said:
Something has to be done. This is something.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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.0 -
Once they are brutalised, soldiers do incredibly hideous things in a warFoxy said:
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.Dura_Ace said:
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.Nigelb said:Vox pops in Russia are disturbing.
https://twitter.com/GicAriana/status/1511571664462561283
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 war2 -
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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.0 -
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.eek said:
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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...0 -
That's better than doing nothing sometimes which seems to be your only alternative, yes.bondegezou said:
Something has to be done. This is something.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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 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.1 -
Sorry but for most people and indeed most content 4k and proper HDR aren't worth the very significant additional costs.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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.
Firstly because most people really wouldn't care and except for sport and for Premium Drama 4K and proper HDR just isn't required.
0 -
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.Foss said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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.1 -
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.eek said:
Sorry but for most people and indeed most content 4k and proper HDR aren't worth the very significant additional costs.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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, withoutFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?FrancisUrquhart said:
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,bondegezou said:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplanFrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.bondegezou said:
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727glw said:
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.bondegezou said: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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.Taz said:
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.BartholomewRoberts said:
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.Alistair said:
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.BartholomewRoberts said:
You might want to rethink that logic.CorrectHorseBattery said:Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
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.
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?
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.
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.0
This discussion has been closed.