NEWS: BBC Chief asks for deregulation to fight Netflix

Bad boys bad boys. What you gonna do, What you gonna do when the beebs come for you.

I'd love to see more shows like Bodyguard and Young offenders. It takes far too long for them to make new series and frankly there's very little advertising when they do show other than on older platforms (radio times) or direct on the channel. Didn't hear about either series until it had already shown and people were speaking about them on twitter...
 
The bbc is is a farce beyond measure. It already gets at least 5000 million pounds a year without having to try for it.

Far past time it was made to pay for itself and the licence theft cancelled.
 
The whole board should think themselves lucky they still have a job.

How much money did the whole Cliff Richards thing cost them?
How much money are they still peeing away on so called celebrities ?
What about all the people that were given non contractual golden handshakes and then invited back as "consultants" at higher rates ?

Then they have the barefaced cheek to dole out yet another crappy reality show.

I think Paul is right, scrap the licence fee, let them go commercial then they can raise all the money they need.
 
I haven't had a TV license for over 10 years. Why you ask? It's simple,I don't watch rubbish! Especially nothing the BBC likes to call "entertainment". Netflix and dvd/blu rays have all I could possibly need. I admit there is the odd good programme that comes from them but I get them on DVD as cheap as I can as not to support them. I don't even watch iplayer nor have it installed on any of my equipment.

Also I don't like the fact that the BBC treat people who don't want to use their crappy service like criminals. I declared I didn't need a license to them those years ago and I get quite threatening letters at least once every fortnight from them since. Such as "we have opened an investigation" and "we know,you know this address is unlicensed and an enforcement officer will be paying you a visit".

I don't recall Kelloggs ever sending me a letter stating they're sending someone round to see if I'm eating corn flakes I haven't paid for. They can send however they like but they are not coming into my property.

To be honest I feel that this crooked company has gotten away with daylight robbery and covering up certain events (*cough* Jimmy Savile and co.*cough*) for decades and it's about time it's outdated service was removed entirely. Even most of the so called news they dish out is pure biased government propaganda.

Now they're stating that they can't compete with other streaming services and actually expect the paying public to feel sorry for them after robbing them blind for years.

Ok so sorry for the rant but this is honestly something I feel very strongly about. Especially when you hear of single mums being jailed for not being able to pay the license,ridiculous!
 
Yes and they deliberately kill programs in their back catalogue, saying there is no demand or it is niche interest only.
But such shows are all available on YouTube, dailymotion etc. Getting others viewing figures. Then you have bias BBC news propaganda machine .
 
The bbc is is a farce beyond measure. It already gets at least 5000 million pounds a year without having to try for it.

Far past time it was made to pay for itself and the licence theft cancelled.

BBC and TV License. 2 biggest cons in the UK which should be wiped out from Planet Earth.
 
As someone who has had inside experience of this organisation I would kill to be the first in line to scrap the licence fee. What started out as a public broadcaster with a mission to explain and educate, to report in a fair balanced way, has become a politically correct, Left-wing/liberal broadcast propaganda arm of the Labour Party and the Guardian, pursuing its own agenda, force financed by taxpayers, regardless of whether they even watch or listen, under penalty of imprisonment. If it wishes to continue to do so then it should compete in an open and free market, self-financing, self-supporting, with viewers and listeners finally treated as customers and not prisoners.
 
In the past, the BBC would always bolster their programming with bought-in (typically American) shows. Star Trek. Buffy. Seinfeld. MASH. Even The Rockford Files, Starsky & Hutch, Taxi... Those days are gone though.

As far as home-produced content, it feels like the BBC got too comfortable leaning on things like Last Of The Summer Wine and Eastenders, and didn't predict the shift in the landscape started by Netflix.

There have been some stand-out global-appeal BBC shows in the last few years, but is the BBC making enough of them to compete with Netflix etc? (I'd say no, not as things stand). Can you make a successful commercial streaming service on the basis of Strictly, The One Show, Mrs Brown's Boys, Homes Under The Hammer...?

Is there some aspect of regulation that requires them to churn out so many tired, old-fashioned programmes? If not, I don't think it's regulation that's the issue...
 
In the past, the BBC would always bolster their programming with bought-in (typically American) shows. Star Trek. Buffy. Seinfeld. MASH. Even The Rockford Files, Starsky & Hutch, Taxi... Those days are gone though.

As far as home-produced content, it feels like the BBC got too comfortable leaning on things like Last Of The Summer Wine and Eastenders, and didn't predict the shift in the landscape started by Netflix.

There have been some stand-out global-appeal BBC shows in the last few years, but is the BBC making enough of them to compete with Netflix etc? (I'd say no, not as things stand). Can you make a successful commercial streaming service on the basis of Strictly, The One Show, Mrs Brown's Boys, Homes Under The Hammer...?

Is there some aspect of regulation that requires them to churn out so many tired, old-fashioned programmes? If not, I don't think it's regulation that's the issue...

It's complex and there's a lack of space and time, but reduced to the max: Rights and Licences. If you own the rights you can make a mint, if you have the licence you are basically renting, not owning. The BBC has been operating commercially for years, through BBC Worldwide, for example, also co-producing (Often with itself - the joys of creative accounting!) also running PPV channels in other territories, as well as commercial arms there, such as BBC America. The current Killing Eve for example, which I adore, is a co-pro with BBC America and after airing the first episode here all eight got posted on iPlayer (Binge-a-rama!). Old shows, such as 'Last Of The Summer Wine' did sell overseas, and the format rights, such as would apply to 'Strictly' and 'Homes Under The Hammer', are also worth money and could theoretically sell forever. The BBC's main problem is financing new shows in the face of Amazon's and Netflix's bottomless pockets. Of course, a legitimate question would be: Since the licence payer is financing so much of this, why are the profits not paid back to them? Another legitimate question would be: If the BBC is a public broadcaster then why does it not stick to its remit instead of chasing ratings and audience share? Like just about every public body, it wants to have its cake, eat it and eat yours as well.
 
Last edited:
It's complex and there's a lack of space and time, but reduced to the max: Rights and Licences. If you own the rights you can make a mint, if you have the licence you are basically renting, not owning. The BBC has been operating commercially for years, through BBC Worldwide, for example, also co-producing (Often with itself - the joys of creative accounting!) also running PPV channels in other territories, as well as commercial arms there, such as BBC America. The current Killing Eve for example, which I adore, is a co-pro with BBC America and after airing the first episode here all eight got posted on iPlayer (Binge-a-rama!). Old shows, such as 'Last Of The Summer Wine' did sell overseas, and the format rights, such as would apply to 'Strictly' and 'Homes Under The Hammer', are also worth money and could, theoretically sell forever. The BBC's main problem is financing new shows in the face of Amazon's and Netflix's bottomless pockets. Of course, a legitimate question would be: Since the licence payer is financing so much of this, why are the profits not paid back to them? Another legitimate question would be: If the BBC is a public broadcaster then why does it not stick to its remit instead of chasing ratings and audience share? Like just about every public body, it wants to have its cake, eat it and eat yours as well.

Some VERY interesting points there!
 
It's complex and there's a lack of space and time, but reduced to the max: Rights and Licences. If you own the rights you can make a mint, if you have the licence you are basically renting, not owning. The BBC has been operating commercially for years, through BBC Worldwide, for example, also co-producing (Often with itself - the joys of creative accounting!) also running PPV channels in other territories, as well as commercial arms there, such as BBC America. The current Killing Eve for example, which I adore, is a co-pro with BBC America and after airing the first episode here all eight got posted on iPlayer (Binge-a-rama!). Old shows, such as 'Last Of The Summer Wine' did sell overseas, and the format rights, such as would apply to 'Strictly' and 'Homes Under The Hammer', are also worth money and could theoretically sell forever. The BBC's main problem is financing new shows in the face of Amazon's and Netflix's bottomless pockets. Of course, a legitimate question would be: Since the licence payer is financing so much of this, why are the profits not paid back to them? Another legitimate question would be: If the BBC is a public broadcaster then why does it not stick to its remit instead of chasing ratings and audience share? Like just about every public body, it wants to have its cake, eat it and eat yours as well.

Thanks for the reply, very interesting.

I would expect the BBC to find ways to exploit their output wherever they can. Is there some other way of raising revenue that the Beeb are missing out on due to regulation? What specific bit of deregulation are the BBC asking for?

People are talking about a paid-for streaming service, but have the BBC even intimated that that's an approach they want to pursue? There seems to be a limit on the number of streaming services that the majority of viewers will pay for, and with Netflix and Amazon already established, and services from Disney and Apple on the way, I'm not convinced a "paid-for iPlayer" would be most consumers' first or second choice. Though it might work if a paid-for iPlayer came in at half the price of Netflix et al.

And I agree - does it make sense for the BBC to try and compete on the same turf as Netflix anyway? Perhaps the model they have now is the right one. Although it can be a slippery slope once you find yourself getting marginalised by the competition.
 
The other small point to make is that whilst Netflix and Amazon spend that mind boggling amount each year, it’s also important to remember that those amounts are very much split between territories. It’s all well and good saying the BBC can’t compete with Netflix’s Billions, when in truth it’s only a small portion of that which is actually pushed directly to buying content for the UK. For example whilst whining about the Big Bad Netflix, BBC has just sold them global rights outside the UK to the Bodyguard for example.
 
Thanks for the reply, very interesting.

I would expect the BBC to find ways to exploit their output wherever they can. Is there some other way of raising revenue that the Beeb are missing out on due to regulation? What specific bit of deregulation are the BBC asking for?

People are talking about a paid-for streaming service, but have the BBC even intimated that that's an approach they want to pursue? There seems to be a limit on the number of streaming services that the majority of viewers will pay for, and with Netflix and Amazon already established, and services from Disney and Apple on the way, I'm not convinced a "paid-for iPlayer" would be most consumers' first or second choice. Though it might work if a paid-for iPlayer came in at half the price of Netflix et al.

And I agree - does it make sense for the BBC to try and compete on the same turf as Netflix anyway? Perhaps the model they have now is the right one. Although it can be a slippery slope once you find yourself getting marginalised by the competition.

You're welcome and thank you.

I'm guessing, but the BBC would clearly love to be able to charge UK viewers for its offerings over and above the licence fee, establishing whatever kind and number of PPV channels. It would also like to make an open profit and exploit its brand as widely as possible (as a public broadcaster it is not technically allowed to make money in the sense that ITV and Sky do). At the same time it would be desperate to keep the licence fee for as much and as long as possible too.

There could always be a two or more tier iPlayer, such as one that offers all episodes in one go and a standard one where they are posted weekly. Or even special programming available only on the higher tier service, and so on. Don't forget, technically iPlayer has already been paid for, through the licence fee, so selling us again what we have already paid for does not sit well with me.

It makes no sense for a public broadcaster to compete with a commercial one but they all do it regardless. The BBC has already cut services, websites etc. to fund its main activity, programme making and that would continue, especially if it moves to a free market, profit-based model. But again I return to my original comment: Why should the BBC even be competing with Netflix in the first place?
 
The other small point to make is that whilst Netflix and Amazon spend that mind boggling amount each year, it’s also important to remember that those amounts are very much split between territories. It’s all well and good saying the BBC can’t compete with Netflix’s Billions, when in truth it’s only a small portion of that which is actually pushed directly to buying content for the UK. For example whilst whining about the Big Bad Netflix, BBC has just sold them global rights outside the UK to the Bodyguard for example.
ITV sold Bodyguard to Netflix, I think you will find.
 
The other small point to make is that whilst Netflix and Amazon spend that mind boggling amount each year, it’s also important to remember that those amounts are very much split between territories. It’s all well and good saying the BBC can’t compete with Netflix’s Billions, when in truth it’s only a small portion of that which is actually pushed directly to buying content for the UK. For example whilst whining about the Big Bad Netflix, BBC has just sold them global rights outside the UK to the Bodyguard for example.

Can you be more specific at to what you mean by "split between territories"? Certainly, if you produce with Netflix it is their way or the highway. They look for all rights, all media, all territories, in perpetuity (I would guess this last) and commission only what can play across as many Netflix territories as possible. One series that I know of has already been dubbed into getting on for twenty languages. Netflix simply does not do licensing deals in the standard sense. In the past, if you produced for the BBC it would take all rights. That changed and then it insisted the series or whatever would have to be sold through BBC Worldwide. That also changed and now independent producers can choose the sales company and also hold back whatever rights they can. If Netflix offered the BBC enough cash for the global rights to 'Bodyguard' then that is a straight up business deal and probably brought in more than simply selling them territory by territory instead. And such deals can always include holdbacks, such as in this case, where the BBC retains UK rights, for example.
 
Last edited:
I'll buck the trend by saying I really don't mind paying the licence fee. Effectively it's a subscribtion service that gets me a number of TV, radio and websites that don't carry advertising. And God I hate ads. I get the same from Netflix and Amazon; content with no ads and I pay a small monthly fee to both. Do I watch everything that the BBC puts out? No, but neither do I watch everything from Netflix and Amazon.

That said, I fully appreciate that what some people want is the option to not pay the licence fee and not watch BBC programming. There is no easy answer to this one, for every licence fee hater you'll find someone defending it just as strongly. I hate the ad funded world we now live in and I don't suppose many of you stop to think that every ad is funded by a mark up on every product you buy. Commercial TV is mostly funded by adverts, the adverts are funded by you.
 
I detest paying the TV licence... I'm constantly trying to cut down bills yet I'm forced to hand over £12/month for something I don't want.

I'd quite happily cancel it but the missus is a stay at home parent and she doesn't have the time or the will to be dealing with enforcement officers, I'd quite happily tell them to f-off but i'm rarely home.
 
I detest paying the TV licence... I'm constantly trying to cut down bills yet I'm forced to hand over £12/month for something I don't want.

I'd quite happily cancel it but the missus is a stay at home parent and she doesn't have the time or the will to be dealing with enforcement officers, I'd quite happily tell them to f-off but i'm rarely home.

I do agree with you there,the "enforcement officers" are bullies and they would have a field day when they realise a woman is at home by herself and spit out loads of empty threats. That does make me sound a little sexist but it does happen. I'm always prepared for a visit. I have a home video camera network and one is always pointed at the front door with the microphone on to record any shenanigans :rolleyes:.

I work in a factory of about 18 people and 4 of them including me have cancelled their license. None of us are license evaders but we simply don't need one.
 
I'll buck the trend by saying I really don't mind paying the licence fee. Effectively it's a subscribtion service that gets me a number of TV, radio and websites that don't carry advertising. And God I hate ads. I get the same from Netflix and Amazon; content with no ads and I pay a small monthly fee to both. Do I watch everything that the BBC puts out? No, but neither do I watch everything from Netflix and Amazon.

That said, I fully appreciate that what some people want is the option to not pay the licence fee and not watch BBC programming. There is no easy answer to this one, for every licence fee hater you'll find someone defending it just as strongly. I hate the ad funded world we now live in and I don't suppose many of you stop to think that every ad is funded by a mark up on every product you buy. Commercial TV is mostly funded by adverts, the adverts are funded by you.

I agree with you, but you miss the salient point: There is no freedom of choice here. If you do not pay the licence fee, even if you do not watch or listen to the BBC in any shape or form, then for the vast majority of viewers (I exclude those who make use of the 'get out') then you are automatically criminalised. That is the same as having to pay a Tesco or Waitrose tax even though you shop at M&S and never set foot in the others.
 
Can you be more specific at to what you mean by "split between territories"? Certainly, if you produce with Netflix it is their way or the highway. They look for all rights, all media, all territories, in perpetuity (I would guess this last) and commission only what can play across as many Netflix territories as possible. One series that I know of has already been dubbed into getting on for twenty languages. Netflix simply does not do licensing deals in the standard sense. In the past, if you produced for the BBC it would take all rights. That changed and then it insisted the series or whatever would have to be sold through BBC Worldwide. That also changed and now independent producers can choose the sales company and also hold back whatever rights they can. If Netflix offered the BBC enough cash for the global rights to 'Bodyguard' then that is a straight up business deal and probably brought in more than simply selling them territory by territory instead. And such deals can always include holdbacks, such as in this case, where the BBC retains UK rights, for example.

No I don't disagree with regard to their Original series, I fully realise that their wholly owned/global licensed titles are viable worldwide. Its just out of that huge wad of expenditure each year there is a Very sizable amount allocated to a movie licenses, and they are very much split by territory. (Disneys soon to end deal with Netflix in the US alone comes to some $300M annually.)

Where Netflix has been very smart is taking locally produced series from one country, buying global licensing rights elsewhere, and essentially beating the various local networks over the head with each others content. All the while the local networks are moaning, and yet they still giving Netflix the ammo to do more damage to each other.
 
I haven't had a TV license for over 10 years. Why you ask? It's simple,I don't watch rubbish! Especially nothing the BBC likes to call "entertainment". Netflix and dvd/blu rays have all I could possibly need. I admit there is the odd good programme that comes from them but I get them on DVD as cheap as I can as not to support them. I don't even watch iplayer nor have it installed on any of my equipment.

Also I don't like the fact that the BBC treat people who don't want to use their crappy service like criminals. I declared I didn't need a license to them those years ago and I get quite threatening letters at least once every fortnight from them since. Such as "we have opened an investigation" and "we know,you know this address is unlicensed and an enforcement officer will be paying you a visit".

I don't recall Kelloggs ever sending me a letter stating they're sending someone round to see if I'm eating corn flakes I haven't paid for. They can send however they like but they are not coming into my property.

To be honest I feel that this crooked company has gotten away with daylight robbery and covering up certain events (*cough* Jimmy Savile and co.*cough*) for decades and it's about time it's outdated service was removed entirely. Even most of the so called news they dish out is pure biased government propaganda.

Now they're stating that they can't compete with other streaming services and actually expect the paying public to feel sorry for them after robbing them blind for years.

Ok so sorry for the rant but this is honestly something I feel very strongly about. Especially when you hear of single mums being jailed for not being able to pay the license,ridiculous!

Bravo and well said. I've just recently joined the trend and cancelled my licence this month. Didn't even bother connecting my new TV to the antenna. I've already received threatening letters!

I did declare that I don't need a licence so I'll see how long the peace lasts...
 
No I don't disagree with regard to their Original series, I fully realise that their wholly owned/global licensed titles are viable worldwide. Its just out of that huge wad of expenditure each year there is a Very sizable amount allocated to a movie licenses, and they are very much split by territory. (Disneys soon to end deal with Netflix in the US alone comes to some $300M annually.)

Where Netflix has been very smart is taking locally produced series from one country, buying global licensing rights elsewhere, and essentially beating the various local networks over the head with each others content. All the while the local networks are moaning, and yet they still giving Netflix the ammo to do more damage to each other.

Netflix keeps its figures, costs, ratings and audience sizes, to itself. Disney intends to go its own way on streaming, which makes perfect sense because there would be no longer any reason to split income and all decisions would be taken in house. But if I am selling films and Netflix makes me the best offer, then I take it. The same as a producer: take the best deal. Netflix also hands out 100% commissions, which can be very attractive as all costs, including producer fees and overheads, are covered, so no need to fill funding gaps, seek mezzanine finance, look for other partners with creative demands of their own, and so on. Amongst Netflix's film deals has been to fund Woody Allen and they also picked up the latest Coen Brothers film, so it is not like they will abandon the film business, whether producing their own or simply buying. I believe they also have a deal with Will Smith now. With regard to the various local networks, if Netflix wants to buy and they want to sell, then the deal gets struck. Any local network playing dog in the manger will be bypassed and another will step in instead.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is Home Theater DEAD in 2024?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom