All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Fred Perkins: This isn't about insults, its about evidence. And its the lack of evidence to back up common assertions that troubles me.
Its certainly true that a large single broadcaster, with a steady revenue stream in the billions, interests that go beyond just TV broadcasting, and some would say a clear bias in some area's of its news reporting and extensive links with the political establishment may well have an profound effect on other players in the sector. By using their quasi-monopoly position, they could block others from access to certain suppliers, outbid others for certain coverage and possibly push others out of business entirely by underhand means. But enough of Sky for the moment...
Is there actually any real evidence that the BBC is no longer capable of fulfilling its remit in this modern world? Is there any evidence of restriction of choice or crowding out? And has technology made the licence fee obsolete?
The actual answer is probably no.
If the BBC contined to get three and a half billion pounds a year, yet was watched by only a small fraction of people, that might be grounds to cut the BBC down to size, etc. Yet 99% use its services on a weekly basis, and some 98% of viewers watch BBC1 at least once during any given week (and has a 21% average share).
Since we have a huge amount of choice, just on terrestial TV (and even more on Sky, where it should be pointed out that BBC viewing does not greatly differ from terrestial), there seems to be little evidence of any stranglehold by the BBC. You can chose to watch any number of channels, yet the vast majority of us continue to watch the BBC - are we brainwashed?
As to the idea of 'crowding out', this normally applies where there is a free and open market, which is distorted by the state. The UK's broadcasting structure is regulated, so its hardly a free market in the classical sense. And there is no single market in terms of funding. ITV and the rest of the non-BBC channels advertise, Sky manages the neat trick of getting people to pay to watch it, and advertise to them at the same time (although its only a small part of their revenue stream), and of course the BBC gets theirs via the licence fee.
You could argue that there is an opportunity cost in the licence fee, since people could spend that on services from the commercial sector, and certainly the BBC has a commercial arm, selling books, etc, but even PBS in the States does that, and its very difficult to argue that thats crowding out the market.
A reprt asking if there was no BBC Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism did ask the question about crowding out, but since the data is sparse, the best they could up with was to suggest that 'most economists' agree that there must be.
They state 'none of its proponents has to our knowledge provided any empirical evidence to support it or tested the presumption that a free market with out the BBC, funded by subscriptions and advertising, would meet consumers' needs better than the current mixed economy'.
So they had a look at the data, and even given the BBC critics the benefit of the doubt (and assuming that there is crowding out), if there was no BBC and no licence fee, the net effect would be:
'Total TV industry revenue would most likely be lower, although there
is a wide range of uncertainty about how much
.
Total content investment would be 5 25% lower.
Investment in first - run UK content would be 25 50% lower.
The net impact on viewers would vary, but most would suffer a reduction in both choice and value for money.
A 25 50% net reduction in investment in first - run UK content would also be a
severe blow to UK production companies.'
Actually, one of the possible outcomes was for investment in first run UK features to fall by 57%. Some of their assumptions were more positive, with revune up by possibly 10%, but overall, it looked bad. And the impact on viewers would two-fold. Not only would large amounts of UK content disappear, they also calculated that the cost to the viewer would increase. If non PSB commercial sources became the the main means of accessing TV, then costs per viewer per hour would be four times the cost of the BBC and PSB commercial channels. In other words, Sky would cost them much much more money. And less choice. And less quality programming.
Crowding out makes no sense when you think about it. Is there a very limited number of actors, technicians, writers and directors? Judging by Equity's employment rate, clearly not. In fact the commercial channels tend to pay more anyway, so the market is in their favour. And the 'market' is not a zero sum game - if the BBC makes 'The Paradise', that does not mean that ITV cannot make 'Dowton Abbey'. And thanks to PVR's, and streaming, we can watch both 'The X Factor', and 'Strictly'.
In fact there is an argument that the BBC raises everyones game. It trains and nutures talent, provides programmes that other broadcasters want to copy (Dancing on Ice, Got To Dance,etc), and pushes innovation. There really wouldn't be digital if the BBC hadn't stepped in after Ondigital crashed and burned. It was the BBC who introduced colour TV, the BBC website was early in the game on the net (and the BBC computer was a huge force in opening up the home computer market) and Iplayer led the way on streaming content. Far from crowding out, they were trailblazing.
And if the commercial's are so good, where are the childrens channels, the nature documentaries, etc? The BBC won 13 out the 25 childrens' BAFTA awards this year (and at least 5 they weren't even eligible). Yes, CN won the kids votes for channel of the year, but its the BBC which is investing in the kids TV. Its certainly not Sky.
The that now we can stream, we dont need the BBC any more is one of the most stupid memes around today. Its generally uttered by metropolitan journo's, who have the money and the capacity to stream Breaking Bad. I love Breaking Bad, but most people in the US didn't watch it, and nether did most people in the Uk, even when it was on terrestial (it was sort of hidden away).
Its basically the tech version of 'let them eat cake'. At least 30 years after VCR's became cheap enough to buy for almost every home, the bulk of viewing is still done LIVE. Not even recorded. The amount of streaming thats done is really very small. Yes, its growing, but even so, most people dont do it, and if they do, not a lot, and usually via Iplayer. Even if you have the capacity to stream (as MikeP points out, 2mb is the ambition of the government!), you may not even want or feel the need to. When everyones broadband is as universal and fast as TV reception is now, then we'll talk. Until then, lets be practical.
Essentially, most people watch TV in much the same way as we did in 1975, albeit with vastly more channels, and the capacity to chat about it instantly. Seems crazy to me, but since we are essentially still apes on the savannah, why expect a massive change in viewing habits, just because the technology is there for many, but by no means all?
'The BBC has no monopoly of truth nor of wisdom.' Indeed. You dont have to watch or listen to it, and if you disagree with something, you are more than welcome to tell them. Personally, I though the BBC's coverage of the anti-terrorism debate and todays report were awful, and I will let them know. You might disagree. Thats fine.
But its the worst solution, apart from all the rest. I have no problem with people coming up with different ideas, but I like those ideas to be grounded in reality and have actual evidence to back them up. What tends to happen is little more than handwaving and objecting on 'principle' to the BBC and the licence fee, even if its abolition would lead to poorer programmes, less choice and at higher cost.
| link to this comment |
David Toman: How is the TV attached to the Freesat box? At least with HDMI you might be able to use CEC.
| link to this comment |
SeeMoreDigital: Its a good point - my children certainly dont think it unusual to watch TV via catchup or on the laptop.
Yet, there is another trend, which is that the size of TV's has increased. The single most popular TV the firm I work for sold last year was a 46in Samsung. 5 years ago, I suspect it was perhaps a 40, and certainly the 32in TV's which were at the front of the display 6 years ago have now been shunted off to a corner, because they are basically now bedroom TV's for most people.
So whilst we want to watch TV on bigger screens, we also want to watch them on smaller ones...
I suspect that nobody really wants to watch the final of Strictly or the X-Factor on a 15in laptop or 8in Ipad, when they could watch it on a 50in screen, and thats certainly not going to be the case for 4K. What might be occuring is that the ease of viewing on phones, etc means that the market is more complex, with a greater mixture of viewing platforms and habits. And much the same could be said of music. You watch the final on the 50in, tweet on the Ipad, and perhaps look at something else at the same time.
Of course the age problem isn't just for the BBC - its every broadcaster, although perhaps if BBC3 hadn't been left to die because of budget cuts, then possibly the 16-34 demographic (always the most difficult to capture) might like the BBC a little more. Content is content, its monertising it which is perhaps the problem. Even Netflix has to get its content from somewhere.
As for the Radio 4 extra (actually Radio 7 at the time) kids programmes, pretty much nobody knew they were on. My kids quite liked them, but frankly, thats what Cbeebies is for. I doubt that most kids since about 1970 have listened to kids progs on radio, so I'm not sure what they were thinking.
As for young people not wanting to pay for a licence, Stephen Fry got some flak the other day for pointing out that many seem to think that everything on the web should be free, just because they've paid their ISP. Content costs, and someone has to pay. If we followed the German/Swiss model, and forced everyone to get a licence if they had a computer capable of watching TV (or just make sure that Iplayer could only be viewed if you have a licence), would we see a change?
| link to this comment |
John Taylor: Are you sure its a freeview recorder? Because if it is, it simply would not work with the dish. Assuming its actually a Freesat model, the answer is still no. The PVR records to the PVR. The scart connection allows you to show it on the TV.
Now if your TV is attached to an aerial, you could (depending on the model), record to a flash drive plugged into one of the usb ports on the TV - thats fairly standard. And since you've an LG, which for the past two years has included an generic sat. tuner on the back of most of their models (although they dont mention it), there should be the possiblity of using that tuner to record as well. Of course you will need a spare LNB on your dish.
Frankly, I'd just use the PVR - the tuner in the TV cannot be used for anything else while recording, so let the PVR do the hard work.
As for using a scart - why? Almost certainly the PVR has an hdmi connection. They TV should have three. Your missing out on HD, upscaling, and just a more unreliable connection.
| link to this comment |
andyfras: There doesn't seem to be any faults on the transmitter. And why would a low signal cause a disk wipe?
| link to this comment |
Brianist: I was in a hurry typing, so I forgot to thank you for your excellent (if slightly depressing) analysis. It did make me want to ask several questions.
Firstly, is there any data as to whether this trend away from TV viewing will be a permanent state? Its early days, but is there evidence from perhaps Finland or the US that people dont just use tablets, etc to watch, but return to the main TV? To be fair, I suggested this kind of trend in relation to analogue radio some months ago - that once people use digital means, they dont go back, but hopefully it might be slightly different with TV!
Or if they do use different ways of watching, are they moving away from the usual providers, and going towards ITunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc, or just watching much the same thing?
Is there any old data of how earlier generations dealt with this demographic ? 16-34 has always been a tough one to crack, but is there any evidence that their viewing habits became more uniform as they got older?
What will be the impact on other broadcasters? What is ITV and C4 doing? And has such a shift already impacted advertising revenue?
I did notice two things. One is the increased amount of gaming in the 16-24 age group - some 9%, and thats not going to get smaller (if my kids are any guide). However, in the 25-35, that percentage falls to 7%, and , and by the 35-44 range its pretty much back to the average. Gaming will be more popular as time goes on, but as you get kids, you dont have time to do very much at all....
The second is that 11-15 year olds tend to watch much more Youtube etc than either the 6-11 group, or all adults. Thats not surprising - 11-15 year olds are more likely to have mobiles, and to watch rubbish on them!
The graphs show two things, which are slightly contradictory. One is that we have ever more things to do with our leisure time, and TV has to compete (as film found out in the 1940's) . However, thanks to technology, we can now game, text and watch TV at times when we couldn't before. Perhaps the two trends might balance each other out!
| link to this comment |
Martin Everett: Whats the make/model numbers of the Tv, Freeview box and dvd/
Or could you say what exactly the connections are on the back of each.
| link to this comment |
Alison: Your just 11km from Midhurst, so you should get a good signal, full stop.
OK - you've moved the new aerial around, and no matter what, there is no signal. You say you've tried new leads, but are these the leads from the TV (which ever ones you've tried) to the socket on the wall where the aerial feed comes from?
You've tried a new aerial, but have you new cable from the aerial to the socket? When the vast majority of people say they have 'no signal', the problem is usually within their system. It could be cable fraying or broken, or moisture getting into the system, or perhaps a booster/amp (not that you really need one) failing in some way. In other words, if the transmitter is fine, the TV is fine, its something inbetween. If the cable comes from the the new aerial down to the TV, I'd check along that path.
You are so close to Midhurst that it might be worth using an old indoor aerial - they are usally a bit rubbish, but at least give it a go. I suspect that there is a problem along the way, and that you might need to call a professional. However, ATV Online Shop might give you lots of useful advice, and you might sort it out yourself.
| link to this comment |
Tuesday 25 November 2014 9:47AM
Brianist: If I view the comments page on Safari on my Ipod, the section any new comment is in is fine on the left hand side of the screen. However, the comment itself, in the right, is much harder to read, because it is a large (narrow) block of text, with the section heading half way down. The blocks of text all run together, making it very difficult to seperate one comment from another.
Its a bit easier using landscape, but frankly, the old (desktop) system was easier to read.