BBC admits iPlayer has lost streaming fight with Netflix | Hacker News Reader

BBC admits iPlayer has lost streaming fight with Netflix

theguardian.com

Personally I kind of agree. Other than storage and traffic considerations I cannot see why the entire BBC archive is not available online. It seems stupid to me that we have literally 50+ years of content, documentaries, panel shows, etc. Which could all easily be put online as they are the BBC's content and have been paid for by the British people already.

I understand that this might be overkill but I definitely find myself wanting to watch older episodes of things like would I lie to you or Rhod Gilbert's work experience or HIGNFY or some other show which disappeared long ago for no real reason. Netflix, Amazon, are all ok but there really is a market for some service which has an entire plethora of shows with permanent storage. I'm also fed up of nextflix getting some show I like only to have it disappeared in a month, or only season 3 of 5 be available. If the BBC can solve that they have my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too.

But the BBC don't actually own the rights to most of their old output. They were made in an era too where streaming rights weren't a thing.assume it's different with newer stuff but...

If it is in the publics best interest for the BBC to own the rights then that can be arranged

How?

Say the BBC made a great series in 1978 and paid the composer of the music for enough rights to air it in the UK, but not for media which were not yet invented at the time. The composer is now dead, the heirs moved to NZ and Italy, the will (written in 1982) doesn't make quite clear which heir inherited the internet rights, and none of the heirs really care to pay lawyers for the sake of a £500-1500 sale. How do you propose to arrange acquisition of the rights?

This isn't even very farfetched. A lot of old contracts were written without consideration of the streaming possibilities that eventually ensued. BTDT.

Current government would be strongly against that. They want to BBC to use private production companies who'll make the content that BBC then transmits.

This is seen across a wide range of government departments: moving away from big central (often previously state) providers to smaller local private providers.

Well, to private providers anyway. The preference for most things seems to be huge multinationals rather than small local companies.

If it is in the publics best interest for the BBC to own the rights then that can be arranged

Is it in the public interest?

What is the benefit to the public of the BBC spending the money necessary to reclaim the rights to their old content? I can't think of anything. The shows that have any value (eg Dr Who) have already commericialized. Everything else ... why bother? The obvious point is that it'd be nice to watch some of the old shows again, but really, out of the 97 years of content across radio and television probably 99.9999% would never be looked ay by anyone.

Just as a parallel, there's millions of hours of old content on https://archive.org/ that never gets looked at. Why would the old BBC content be any different?

I'd happily pay to get access to the full BBC catalogue - in fact I'd probably find more to watch there than I do on Netflix & Amazon (which I already subscribe to).

Lots of people say that. I imagine the BBC use data from things like https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/categories/archive/ to demonstrate that most people are not viewing the archive content that is available already, so people's claims that they'd pay are not backed up by evidence.

I wonder if they collect statistics of people who spot that there are some old 'Horizons' on iPlayer and then get seriously disappointed at the meagre selection available.

Absolutely.

To go a little bit more high brow.

Imagine being able to go through all the Horizon documentaries. Or the Open University Stuff.

What about being able to watch political discussions on joining the Common Market.

Quite why most of this stuff isn't viewed as a public library that we have the right to access, I don't know.

>I definitely find myself wanting to watch older episodes of things like would I lie to you or Rhod Gilbert's work experience or HIGNFY or some other show which disappeared long ago for no real reason.

You can watch selected re-runs from an archive of older content on Dave[1].

>If the BBC can solve that they have my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too

I am not sure what you mean by they have my business ─ BBC is not based on a subscription model. It is funded by a licence fee, which is more or less mandatory, unless you can prove otherwise e.g. you don't watch live broadcast etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_(TV_channel)

>If the BBC can solve that they have my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too

I meant that there's currently a market gap for a streaming service with a massive (persistent being key) catalogue of data. Netflix and others have a hodgepodge of TV/movies available, which come and go. I was suggesting that the beeb keep the service as it is in the UK, add the archive content, then release a subscription service overseas with access to the full range of shows. Having that amount of money coming into the UK would do nothing but good IMO.

I've seen some replies from others as to OFCOM regulations so it seems this is just a pipe dream at the moment.

> unless you can prove otherwise

Important clarification, the onus is on the TV licensing agency to prove you did watch TV whilst it is being broadcast or you use iplayer. It is not for the member of public to prove they do not.

* Every Dr Who, ever.

* Hitch Hiker's Guide.

* All of Blake's 7.

And that's without trying. There's definitely a business there but the BBC just aren't chasing it.

The trouble is that there is a regulator (OFCOM) that will not allow them to do things like this, because it would prejudice commercial broadcasting rivals (apparently).

When i was young I used to record Jools Holland on VCR and make mix tapes of individual tracks that I enjoyed, it was great fun and made for relatively unique audio.

I'd love to be able to just buy the digital audio (heck, the videos, I can strip the audio out) on a track by track basis. They never made it available, so I can't vOv

I would love for them to spin out Later...with Jools Holland and some of the earlier stuff and place it on BBC Four, like they are doing with their curated TOTP catalogue. I did find a tracklist on Spotify a while ago, which had tracks from each episode; alas, it is no more.

For those who don't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later..._with_Jools_Holland

I've been an avid viewer of Jools Holland since I was very young and I second this - there have been a few DVDs over the years IIRC and they're finally starting to put current performances on YouTube but having all of the past recordings available would be incredible.

The BBC does want to do it - they are being prevented by regulation.

Yeah our local public broadcast does this and it is local market leader. https://www.audienceproject.com/blog/key-insights/new-study-...

BBC became quite unprofitable since the Savile scandal,with the change in management and direction the company became a bit lost. That's why quality of the shows dropped and they lost a lot of the money that came through them via BBC World.

That's why the BBC is already selling out their assets and removing access to british citizens that already paid for the shows in the first place.

Maybe if they didn't send letters masking as police enforcement trying to bully you into paying for tv license you don't need, people would be more welcoming towards using their product.

I believe Capita are still mostly responsible for the letter-sending – and unfortunately I suspect the bullying tactics work.

[0] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-A...

We have a large collection of these letters pinned to the wall at our office. Not sure how they got our address but we don't watch broadcast TV so of course don't need a TV license. They're more than welcome to visit anytime to confirm.

I'd much rather the money that I (willingly) pay for my home TV license went towards improving content and broadcast infrastructure than going straight into the pockets of utter scum like Capita.

I suspect someone in your office got a TV delivered to work, rather than their home address. Prior to June 2013, dealers that sold TV's had to notify the TV licensing agency as per The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967.

The BBC has suffered a lot from the Savile scandal back in 2012. Many executives were fired and new ones were hired straight from mainstream media, breaking the old impartiality that made BBC a trustworthy source.

They lost Top Gear because they started under funding their biggest show. BBC studios here in Twickenham got redirected to push for a political agenda.

As the company became unprofitable under a new administration, things became quite unstable and even today they still are. So many things going wrong that people can't find what to tackle first.

But ... why should the Beeb be the one owning the streaming app on my phone. I (re)watch Doctor Who episodes on Netflix (or amazon or whatever). I dont care what device I watch on, I just want to watch content I want.

Which is kind of the point. (Keep) making great content. Worry less about the streaming client.

netflix/amazon aren't streaming clients, they are content producers. Most of the stuff on netflix and prime now seems to be made by them.

Well the Beebwas never going to compete with billions of dollars of borrowed cash ploughed into anything with a pulse. If this is "can the beeb compete with the new production houses of Netflix / Amazon /Disney" then no is the answer. If its about the market share of iPlayer in the Uk (which is mentioned) then it may have been a different kettle of fish.

But really - they were massively outspent. Yet programmes like David Attenborough's Planet are top rated shows on their rivals. To my mind that is the Beebs strength and should stay that way.

Focus on being a trusted global provider of high quality programming. Dont try and be the Saturday night entertainment for 18-24 year olds.

Why not? BBC has an operating budget of about 6 billion dollars a year. It has over 20,000 employees - it's enormous and that money isn't borrowed, it's simply given to them by legal fiat.

The BBC is thus in a stronger financial position than Netflix, which ultimately must yield RoI and has been around far less time, so has had less cumulative spend on content. Whilst Netflix has a larger content budget for now, it's only approx 2x the BBC's spend.

In reality the BBC is outcompeted because it's not a global operation, because it spends a lot of money on non-internet streaming things like radio and news, because its not really exposed to competitive pressure except in the most indirect ways, and because they'd rather sell shows to foreign firms than keep the rights, buy more rights and stream internationally.

Hmmmmm ....

Ok I had not seen it that way.

Wait what? The BBC's iPlayer was in this "streaming fight"?

I thought it is only available in the UK and not anywhere else unlike the other players such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.

iPlayer doesn't seem nowhere near winning this "fight" against these players IMHO.

It's an article about a UK company in a UK newspaper. Look at it in that context.

The article seems very UK-centric. As citizen of another coutnry living outside UK I would love to try to subscribe to BBC IPlayer. I think I would prefer it over Netflix, if the price was the same / similar.

I would definitely drop one of the four services I currently have and trade up for BBC if they had a substantial catalog. Without a doubt I would do that, in fact, I now really want to see a service with that type of content. I didn’t even realize I wanted it until now...

Unfortunately commercial broadcasters in the UK (AKA Rupert Murdoch) would go apeshit if the BBC were allowed a commercial opportunity like this. This is the only thing preventing it from happening.

Well there is Britbox[1] for folks outside the UK, formed by ITV & BBC. I've only known that they are now launching in the UK.

[1] https://www.britbox.com/home

* Only available in US and Canada

Got excited for a moment there too :-(

They didn't mention that the requirement for a TV licence to watch iPlayer content is relatively recent. When iPlayer first launched it was exempt from the licence. A TV licence costs about the same as Netflix + Prime does so is not surprising it's now losing out to other, more comprehensive streaming services that often also host BBC content.

It's so weakly enforced that it's hardly a realistic impediment anyway.

I quite like using iPlayer - not as slick as Netflix or Hulu, but not as bad as Sky Go.

This is all written in a "Let us do this or we're doomed" tone.

I wonder if exaggerating the effects means permission is more likley to be granted.

I can't work out the politics that wont let the BBC let us keep watching what we've already paid for, but will let them charge for it again via Britbox.

Surely Britbox is still going to be competing with ITV and Channel 4?

The contortions trying to marry up public service broadcasting and on demand are getting increasingly strained. A rethink is unfortunately becoming necessary.

It’s a joint venture with ITV and AMC.

Ok after further reading.

Britbox currently airs in America, and is a joint venture between the BBC and ITV.

Britbox are planning to launch in the UK with ITV, and possibly Channel 4.

It still doesn't quite allay my concerns. The whole point of not allowing the BBC to broadcast episodes for a year is to stop it dominating the UK media landscape. Removing most (by some measures) competition doesn't seem to solve that.

Sure, that makes sense. I was just pointing out why ITV specifically doesn’t mind: they’re getting the money!

BBC is a joke of a governmental corporation that makes revenues from tv licenses even if you dont own a tv. Essentially they can still make money if you have iPlayer on your computer which requires a license. I live in the UK and every year they send letter to warn all residents even if they dont own a TV (which I dont) they might still need to pay due to iPlayer being on your computer. Blaming Netflix is not enough. Their business model is ludicrous.

> makes revenues from tv licenses even if you dont own a tv

This is just plain wrong. You can own a TV (e.g. for a console) but not pay for a TV licence if you say you don't watch broadcasts. You can even have the software installed on your computer and not pay, as long as you don't actually watch iPlayer with it.

This is different from e.g. Germany where every household must pay for a licence regardless of whether you watch it or not.

If you don't watch broadcast TV and don't use iPlayer for anything but radio, then you can ignore those letters. Whether you own a TV or not is irrelevant. I own a TV but I only use it for Netflix etc. A chap from the TV licensing people came to my house and I told him we don't need a license for those reasons, and now we don't get the letters any more.

You only need a licence if you watch live tv as it's broadcast, or watch catch up tv on iPlayer.

If you have iPlayer "installed" but never use it, and you do not watch live tv as it's broadcast, you do not need a licence.

And even that isn't quite correct is it, you can watch iPlayer on your laptop if you're in someone else's home and they have a licence.

Have things changed recently? The way I remember it (a few years back) was that you didn't need a licence to watch non-live iPlayer, so you could watch yesterday's programmes on iPlayer without the need for a licence.

Yes, the law changed in 2016. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030

> All viewers who use the iPlayer to watch any BBC programmes must now be covered by a TV licence after new rules came into force on Thursday.

> Previously, iPlayer users only needed a licence if they were using the service to watch live broadcasts.

> That meant it was legal to watch programmes after broadcast on catch-up without paying the annual £145.50 fee.

> But the TV licence requirements have now been extended to include catch-up, online premieres and online-only shows.

It only covers BBC iPlayer tv. It doesn't cover eg Channel 4's catch up service.

You need a licence if you use iPlayer; having iPlayer installed on your devices does not mean you require a licence.

You need it if you use it to watch tv. Not for radio.

iPlayer is specifically the BBC. You can watch ITV’s or Channel 4’s catch-up (non-live) services legally without having a TV license, unless the rules changed since I left the country.

I'm not sure that's ever been true. You need a licence to watch any broadcast TV because it also pays for the infrastructure the other channels use.

I think you may have misunderstood me. Broadcast TV does indeed require a license, but catch-up services are not broadcast TV, and I’m referring to that.

To quote from the TV licensing website:

””” Do I need a TV Licence for all on demand programmes?

No. You don’t need a licence if you only ever watch on demand or catch up programmes on services other than BBC iPlayer* (and you also never watch live TV programmes on any channel, including on iPlayer).

You don’t need to be covered by a licence to watch any films or TV shows that you buy online.

*You don’t need a licence to watch S4C TV on demand or listen to radio on iPlayer. You also don’t need one to watch films or TV shows on iPlayer that you’ve bought on the BBC Store.”””

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/b...

It's an interesting situation because Channel 4 are also classed as a public broadcaster and do benefit from some (albeit small) percentage of license revenue.

My mistake indeed, thanks for clearing that up.

You need a license to watch broadcast TV, or to watch content on BBC iPlayer. If you're watching archived content on 4od or itv player, you don't need a licence, but if you're watching on iPlayer you do

You need a licence to watch any live tv service. The law was changed in 2016(?) to add BBC iPlayer catchup services. It doesn't include other channel's catch up service, so you don't need a licence if you only watch catch up on 4OD.

iPlayer has two versions, one for tv and one for radio. The radio iPlayer is being rebranded to BBC Sounds.

You need a licence if you use the tv iPlayer. You don't need a licence if you use the radio iPlayer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com