Companies hate broadcasts because they can’t track viewers as easily and gather data on them to use or sell.
Yeah that’s why the BBC, subject to gdpr, proposed doing this 8 years in the future. It’s cheaper for the BBC to switch off broadcasts, that’s the simple and sufficient reason, not conspiracy needed.
That doesn’t make sense because that would be a really stupid and dangerous line of argument for them. It’s even cheaper for the BBC to close, if that’s the logic they want to pretend they’re using.
The argument should be that the cost of broadcasting is worth the benefit of viewer privacy.
What are you talking about? Whose argument should be that? The BBC’s? Why would they say that broadcast is worth user privacy, when they aren’t violating anyone’s privacy?
It’s even cheaper for the BBC to close, if that’s the logic they want to pretend they’re using.
It’s even cheaper for the BBC to close what? iPlayer? But the proportion of video content being watched by streaming is increasing; cutting it makes no sense at all. Maybe you meant something else, in which case you should be more precise.
What are you talking about? Whose argument should be that? The BBC’s? Why would they say that broadcast is worth user privacy, when they aren’t violating anyone’s privacy?
They might not be violating it, in the sense that they operate within the law, but they do invade your privacy if you use iPlayer by collecting “your name and contact details, your date of birth or financial details […] your email address and age. Device information […] Location information […] Information on your activities outside the BBC […] the articles you read and the programmes you watch.” They use it, among other things “to check if you’re using BBC iPlayer and to keep the licensing database accurate […] to personalise services and give you things more tailored to your tastes […] to show you relevant advertising on another company’s site […] to help us understand what kind of services you might use And sometimes how you might share things with other people g. to recommend things we think might interest you […] to show you advertising when you access a BBC service from outside the UK”. They share it with other companies “When we use other companies to power our services […] When you use another company’s service that connects to us […] When we do collaborative research” (all quotes from the BBC Privacy and Cookies Policy).
I don’t think most viewers realise the broad consent that the BBC demands before it will let you watch iPlayer. Just the privacy section of their terms is 20 screenfuls on my laptop: it’ll be more than that on a smart TV, so it’s obviously going to be “too long: didn’t read” for most people. It’s not an informed choice. Once upon a time, the BBC would have been educating the public about these privacy drawbacks with streaming, not only marketing its own streaming services.
The BBC would say that some broadcast costs are worth more viewer privacy if they cared about public benefit.
It’s even cheaper for the BBC to close what? iPlayer?
No, close the BBC. If the BBC want to say that cost is the main problem with broadcasting, then the next step is to say we close BBC TV entirely (or maybe except for one or two news channels) and save even more. Saying it’s cheaper to close things that deliver public benefit is an absurd argument for them to use.
But the proportion of video content being watched by streaming is increasing; cutting it makes no sense at all. Maybe you meant something else, in which case you should be more precise.
The proportion of video content being watched by streaming is increasing because even the BBC is advertising and marketing streaming over all else. There are numerous adverts/trailers for its programmes shown on its broadcast services which don’t give a time or date of broadcast, but simply say “watch on BBC iPlayer” at the end. Unsurprisingly, if you have something the size of the BBC saying repeatedly to do something, the number of people doing it will increase.
Broadcasts still have value and should be the core of the BBC. It’s not the BSC, after all.
If the BBC want to say that cost is the main problem with broadcasting, then the next step is to say we close BBC TV entirely (or maybe except for one or two news channels) and save even more. Saying it’s cheaper to close things that deliver public benefit is an absurd argument for them to use.
Why would the BBC, which believes in the benefit of its output, suggest closing itself? On the other hand, the BBC is an organisation with a finite budget and has a responsibility to spend that budget wisely. It’s clear why it might suggest targeting that budget in different ways.
Giving me a million pounds would deliver “public benefit” (I am a member of the public), but is clearly a waste of resources.
The proportion of video content being watched by streaming is increasing because even the BBC is advertising and marketing streaming over all else. There are numerous adverts/trailers for its programmes shown on its broadcast services which don’t give a time or date of broadcast, but simply say “watch on BBC iPlayer” at the end.
Right, I’m sure the BBC advertising iPlayer is why YouTube is now the second-most-watched “broadcaster” in the UK.
This change in habits has been gradual but inexorable. The reason for it is obvious: because streaming at any convenient time is more convenient than being locked into a broadcaster’s schedule.
Your privacy objection is bogus. Here is the relevant section of the privacy policy.
Why would the BBC, which believes in the benefit of its output, suggest closing itself?
It won’t, but if the primary aim of change is to save money, then it’s the logical conclusion of that argument. This is proof by absurdity that the argument is flawed.
Right, I’m sure the BBC advertising iPlayer is why YouTube is now the second-most-watched “broadcaster” in the UK.
It’s not the whole reason, but it is part of it. The public have been told repeatedly by Auntie that being tracked and studied is fine.
This change in habits has been gradual but inexorable. The reason for it is obvious: because streaming at any convenient time is more convenient than being locked into a broadcaster’s schedule.
But we’re not locked into a broadcaster’s schedule! We have recording devices that now perfectly display any broadcast programme at a later time of our choosing. Maybe you didn’t realise that and I can’t blame you: the BBC haven’t been advertising it regularly for the last 15+ years.
The biggest benefit of streaming is that you can watch things that haven’t been broadcast or that your device didn’t store, but the cost of that is your privacy.
Your privacy objection is bogus. Here is the relevant section of the privacy policy.
That’s not the privacy policy, but it does link to it. It’s a misleading partial summary of some of it. If you click through to the full policy, you’ll find the stuff I quoted.
The full privacy policy doesn’t contradict the summary of how they share data with other organisations.
if the primary aim of change is to save money, then it’s the logical conclusion of that argument
No, that’s the absurd extension. Their argument is not “money must be saved at all costs”. That should be obvious.
But we’re not locked into a broadcaster’s schedule! We have recording devices that now perfectly display any broadcast programme at a later time of our choosing.
If you have one. And remember to set it. And don’t want to record more things than the number of tuners you have. Etc. you can’t say that this experience is remotely similar to the freedom offered by streaming.
The flip side of this is the actually find out what people want to watch and when, and can spend budget accordingly.
Except they don’t, which is why they’re losing ground. Also, the BBC mission is “to serve all audiences” and “inform, educate and entertain” and not simply to give people whatever junk TV gets the biggest audiences: that’s more ITV/STV and 5.
For the first time, you’d need a subscription to watch “free-to-air” UK TV.
Umm… you need a subscription now. It’s called a “TV License”.
“no longer a universal service”
You have to pay to receive it and there are people who don’t pay so it isn’t “universal” right now.
The doublethink from these guys is amazing.
20 years in the future where rural broadband infrastructure has improved to the point where everyone can get a guaranteed 10Mbps+ it might make sense but until then there will be too many people left with nothing if their broadcast TV disappears.
They’ll still have FM radios and fresh printed copies of yesterdays news.
Most of the research pushing against the switch off is driven by Arqiva, who runs the transmitters, lol.
I cannot see how in 8 years the vast majority doesn’t have some sort of suitable broadband just to exist let alone replace an old freeview set that will likely need replacing in that time frame anyway.
We are already down to 3% of households now, and less than 50k households that do not get 10mbs+. In eight years we will have fixed almost all of that, and aged out a lot of the older demographic that has worse adoption.
Cost aspect I get and agree with, we should be ensuring people on pension credit and other low income benefits get free broadband anyway, its getting increasingly difficult to interact with Government and Local Services without it.
I can watch 4 HD TV streams currently, I doubt my internet can manage that.
Yes, thats clearly a common setup requirement for the majority of people on freeview who don’t have more than 10 Mbps broadband.
There are always edge cases, they are rarely helpful in understanding problems like this as the cost to support them far out weighs the number of people it helps. I would suspect if you means tested this group most would fall outside of qualifying for assistance anyway.
I used to run 3 4k streams plus social media use for 4 adults on what was often 65mbps. You only need a reliable about 5 Mbps for a HD stream for iPlayer, the 10 Mbps more than covers this for the majority of people in this situtation.
Yeah, that’s still 50k who can’t reliably stream and those tend to be already the most isolated and often vulnerable people already, I see a lot of them trying to maintain their existing connections and 8 years will make a good bit of difference but there will be people who sadly slip through the cracks but I guess that’s always the way with progress.
If you look at the rate its dropping it will be close to zero in eight years.
The people left could almost certainly get by with a 5G (or likely 6G by that point) setup properly, and the extreme edge cases left with sat based internet like Starlink.
The general idea at some point is fine but 2034 sounds way too soon.
Unless the BBC plan to provide like 25+ Mbit unlimited data for the cost of a TV license? If that was part of this plan then fuck I am all for it.
WTF? They’re switching off broadcast TV?
