The BBC - what's left to cut? - Printable Version
+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Industry News, Technology and Facilities (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: The BBC - what's left to cut? (/showthread.php?tid=627)
+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Industry News, Technology and Facilities (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: The BBC - what's left to cut? (/showthread.php?tid=627)
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Technologist - 24-12-2023
Those without internet at home 7% of 16+ but 18% of over 65s
See p 14 OFCOM online nation 2023
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/272288/online-nation-2023-report.pdf#page12
There is a lot more stats there ….
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Former Member 2410 - 24-12-2023
(24-12-2023, 10:14 AM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote: Indeed, but the proportion of people without such a connection should be so miniscule now that not having an internet connection can be seen as a lifestyle choice like living off-grid.
The predecessor, The Parliamentary Channel was run by a consortium of cable operators, incidentally
Fundamentally disagree with calling a lack of internet connection / a poor connection a 'lifestyle choice'. For many people, it really isn't, although in some ways you are correct in that it's like living 'off -grid'.
Yes, things are getting better in some ways with respect to data access, but when 8 million households struggle with connectivity / lack of data, it's not a choice at all for many.
If you'd like to find out more, and donate a device, there's plenty of ways to help. The Good Things Foundation is a great place to start (https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org ) and they work with most (all?) of the major networks to donate data and / or devices. If you have a spare device less than five years old, and in decent condition, it could be put to good use!
Also, living without a proper data connection or no data connection is tough, given how much is online these days. Vodafone have done three short films on this topic, and they're worth a watch: https://www.vodafone.co.uk/newscentre/news/realities-of-the-digital-divide-emma-willis-highlights-hidden-crisis/
I don't personally celebrate Christmas, but I wish everyone all the best and I hope everyone manages to enjoy some time with family and friends, and perhaps takes a few moments to help the less fortunate, whether that's a small present of warm socks to a homeless person, or donation to a charity. We all need to look after each other, especially in this difficult world. Take care folks.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Brekkie - 24-12-2023
(23-12-2023, 04:28 PM)bbctvtechop Wrote: On the future of the license fee, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the BBC needs to reduce down to ONLY genuine PSB programmes and those which the commercial sector won't go anywhere near. A reduced fee (maybe 50% of now) would fund these services* via either a broadband levy or council tax, and the rest** would be sold off to the commercial sector.That is never clear cut though. Strictly is the most popular show on TV but it would likely never have been commissioned by the commercial sector. Similarly Bake Off was turned down by rivals before launching on the BBC.
Something like Glastonbury can tick both boxes depending on how you look at it. Discovery have proven the Olympics done by someone other than the BBC just doesn't offer the same level of PSB value, even if on paper it does.
It's easy to pass of popular as commercially viable but that popularity often comes from it being an ad free public service. PSB is different things to different people too - Radio 1 playing Christmas Songs on Christmas Eve sounds like something anybody could do but they have a different connection to their audience than the commercial operators - there is just a bit more warmth to it.
I get the argument but it's as tricky to divide up as it would be scaling back the NHS to "essential services" for example. What is essential to one person isn't to another.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Scrotnig - 24-12-2023
My view is perhaps controversial. Whilst it needs some reform internally, there was very little wrong with the BBC’s output before the current government started meddling for ideological reasons.
I say, put it back how it was, it was fine!
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Brekkie - 24-12-2023
(24-12-2023, 12:59 AM)DTV Wrote: BBC Parliament isn't expensive, but I do think it should be spun off from the BBC - possibly in league with the parliamentary authorities and/or with a consortium of the three news broadcasters. Might even use it as a general political events channel, covering press conferences etc. (meaning they no longer have to clog up the news channels) and be able to get some actual parliamentary review programming back. It's just, given the cuts, it remaining a BBC service arguably detracts from quality of the channel than adds anything to it.
This is where previous cuts cause future problems. Democracy Live was a much better service than one linear channel for moving into a streaming landscape, able to offer multiple simultaneous live streams of both houses, the devolved Parliaments, committee rooms and anything else that might fall under the banner (public inquiries and party conferences for example).
Similarly axing the news app a few years ago has left them trying to make a single news channel work when the app could have ultimately been a less costly replacement with pop up live streams and on demand headlines and stories.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - tellyblues - 24-12-2023
(24-12-2023, 12:45 AM)DTV Wrote: This fundamentally misunderstands the PSB bargain that allows the BBC to work - which is, in order to get funding for the 'PSB stuff', we also provide you with a range of popular programming that you can enjoy and make you feel like the BBC is a worthwhile investment. BBC One is as PSB as any other part of the broadcaster (indeed, I'd argue its PSB value is greater than something like the BBC News channel). What you've outlined as 'PSB stuff' is incredibly expensive and massively reliant on this cross-subsidy, which, if that PSB bargain broke down, I'm not sure if people would be happy to fork out for.
And the thing about this BBC should do PSB stuff only logic, is where do you draw the line? A few years ago, broadcasting women's football would arguably have been 'public service' stuff as it was very much a minority interest; now it's grown in popularity, does 'BBC PSB' have to drop any women's football programming because commercial rivals can do it? When the BBC commissioned Strictly, nobody thought it would be a success; from the minute it was, should the BBC have given the rights over to ITV? Although I guess 'BBC PSB' wouldn't commission anything vaguely fun in the first place, just the Today programme, some dry documentaries and Britain's third-best news channel (out of two).
"Popular" programming does help fund the more PSB type content, but it's also the case that the boring (and popular) PSB content provides the backbones for channels without which it's questionable if some "popular" shows would get made at all. Cuts are never going to be easy when you're taking things away from people but this isn't 20 years ago when money could be - and was - flung around.
The BBC also made the fatal mistake then thinking because everyone aged up to 34 was covered by various dedicated channels that viewers 35+ could have a free run at BBC1. The "changing viewing habits" argument was peddled but let it not be forgotten that children's programming was badly neglected years before it was taken off BBC1 as was TOTP and other young skewing shows. Finally, BBC3 closed because it became full of repeats and the budget wasn't there. The BBC's answer was to move stuff online. Why not have some of it on BBC1? Entirely doable, but in the time that BBC3 had been running, "general audience" shows established themselves on BBC1 and viewers would have kicked up hell. So nothing was done and then years down the line BBC3 returned to linear TV, soon becoming repeats again and an add-on channel for BBC1 viewers in many cases. Why is it OK to provide one audience with great service but treat another so poorly?
My point though is that BBC1 is there for everyone and if the BBC consolidated and moved content from other channels onto it and BBC2, a smaller amount of slots would have to be filled overall and money could be saved. The suggestion of a two-tier basic BBC and subscription service still stands as content no matter who it is aimed at has to be financially viable. Because the general perception is that BBC1 is for older viewers and anything that isn't on it must be crap - which can be true because less money is spent on it - I think that having a better, representative of all the ages flagship channel would convince more people to watch it more and make the BBC be seen as better value for money.
As for Strictly, people did have faith in it from the start. To say that the BBC took a risk with it is true but other shows had to be replaced and there was that older, receptive audience to begin with which helped it along.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - DTV - 24-12-2023
(24-12-2023, 05:53 PM)Brekkie Wrote: Similarly axing the news app a few years ago has left them trying to make a single news channel work when the app could have ultimately been a less costly replacement with pop up live streams and on demand headlines and stories.I mean, if you're going to get into the mistakes they've made regarding news channel reform, we'll be here for months.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Brekkie - 24-12-2023
(24-12-2023, 07:03 PM)tellyblues Wrote: The BBC also made the fatal mistake then thinking because everyone aged up to 34 was covered by various dedicated channels that viewers 35+ could have a free run at BBC1. The "changing viewing habits" argument was peddled but let it not be forgotten that children's programming was badly neglected years before it was taken off BBC1 as was TOTP and other young skewing shows. Finally, BBC3 closed because it became full of repeats and the budget wasn't there. The BBC's answer was to move stuff online. Why not have some of it on BBC1?
They did - and still do. Most BBC3 online content got a post-news outing.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - tellyblues - 24-12-2023
(24-12-2023, 07:43 PM)Brekkie Wrote: They did - and still do. Most BBC3 online content got a post-news outing.
Yes, post news. Not primetime. Dead slots. When there was no linear BBC3 channel and content hadn't been commissioned for specific slots, unless all of it was wholly unsuitable to air pre-watershed, why couldn't BBC3 shows have had earlier timeslots like the ones that would have been good enough on a BBC3 linear channel whenever that has been around but which are supposedly out of the question on BBC1?
I get that BBC1 has an audience and shows have been commissioned but it didn't have to be that way, and in any case, it is not the function of BBC1 to cater to the one audience.
RE: The BBC - what's left to cut? - Brekkie - 24-12-2023
Several documentaries got a 9pm slot too. Even before BBC3 was axed though not much got promoted up the channels - Little Britain and Gavin and Stacey are the only ones that springs to mind really.