Just tried to connect to NBC USA-Canada game live. Prompted me for my cable provider then required me to drop pop-up shields and is now asking for my Comcast email address (which I never use and can't remember).
Oh they get it alright: it's a threat. If you're watching it online you're not watching ads run by your local NBC affiliate. The network affiliate business model is a dying model, but it's not going down without a fight.
This has been a soapbox subject for me for a while.
I actually like the Olympics. I'd love to have it on in the background while working, I'd love to see most of the events, and I enjoy watching a bunch of people get together in one place, from around the world, and compete at the highest levels. It's great.
But I'm not about to subscribe to cable tv for it. I can't stand most of what passes for entertainment on television, I don't want to pay for it, I don't want it in my home. Nor do I want to limit myself only to NBC's coverage of the event, with their moronic and vapid commentators and waste-of-time interviews.
Unfortunately, the various countries are limiting viewership only to their own country, which I think runs pretty starkly against the spirit of the Olympics.
A lot of people here in the UK seem to bemoan the BBC for being overfunded and, basically, crap.(Which I always find amusing having had to suffer US telly at various intervals :P)
Anyway: point is the BBC have run consistent coverage of the whole of the winter Olympics every night over here. Solid stuff.
Everyone should try the model, I think, of tax funded TV.
>>The thing is the model gerally works good here in the uk
I can agree that some good programming has come out of British public television, but I've been given no reason to think this is necessarily a result of (or in spite of) it being tax-funded.
>>note the tax is optional. Yu can choose not to watch tv
I'll grant that being forced to pay for public television only when watching TV is less bad than being forced to pay for public television regardless of whether or not you can even watch TV would be. On the other hand, even half a spoonful of poop ruins a whole pan of brownies. (Less-bad != Good). Why should I have to pay a tax to watch a private broadcast? Why not tax the internet and create a State-run intranet, on that basis?
>>It might not work elsewhere admittedly. But it's worth a shot.
No. Do not want. This is how problems start. Someone gets (or is given, and runs with) the easy idea: "Let taxes pay for it! If it doesn't work out the way we want, they'll just stop doing it!" But governments don't just stop doing things simply on account of them not working. You're already paying them to do it. Why go through the trouble of admitting mistakes and debating about repealing stuff and, in many cases, taking away peoples' (inefficiently allocated, needlessly created) jobs? Sure sounds like a hassle.
Next thing you know, you've got...what we've all already got. Too much fucking government. Please stop asking for more of it on other peoples' account. Even if you think the BBC airs a few good shows, it's the principle. It's not your money, so quit asking them to spend it. No new taxes. No new programs. No new agencies. We can't get rid of or fix all the crap we _already_ have.
Apologies for the zeal, but this is the appropriate reaction when people start clamoring to take your money and use it for something you will have for all practical purposes absolutely zero say in. This is not an efficient way to use our resources, nor an ethical one.
Ok fair point. But it's worth considering; if I were a US citizen I really dont think I would sit much longer and endure the POS channels they have there (sorry to keep picking on the US - but they are the worst offenders by far).
> I can agree that some good programming ...
Oh it's more important than that.
The BBC are meant to be politically neutral - and they do a reasonably good job of being so. Better than anyone else by far.
It also funds the BBC website - which is easily one of the best news sites around (note how often it gets submitted here, and upvoted, as opposed to other general news sites :))
Additionally it funds iPlayer - HD streaming of BBC content. Again, yet to see a commercial offering as slick.
Finally the tax funds Ofcomm which regulates all TV - I think this is one of the main reasons we aren't suffering shoddy corrupted TV :D
There is a broader benefit as well. People are used to solid hours of content with no advertising on te BBC - which means other channels cant get away with as much as certain other countries cram in. Example: Channel 5 shows CSI from 9pm on Tuesdays. It has 10-12 minutes of advertising between segments and finishes at 9:50pm. In the US that fills a whole hour timeslot - they get 100% more advertising (20m) more than us.
So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get (7 BBC channels and guaranteed between 3 and 10 other, well regulated, free-to-air channels plus the BBC website). Certainly I'd never consider paying for cable channels in the way other countries do :(
Actually, my entire point was that people considering these things need to stop considering them...
>> sorry to keep picking on the US - but they are the worst offenders by far
Fair enough. I'm by no means a fan of US television on the whole; there is some real garbage (in my personal opinion), and watching advertisements on television you're already paying for (cable, satellite) is ridiculous. But that's not enough to justify what you're calling for.
>> The BBC are meant to be politically neutral - and they do a reasonably good job of being so. Better than anyone else by far.
That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Even if you think the news on the Beeb is mostly politically neutral...suppose it isn't? What are you going to do, stop paying for it and watch another channel? Oops, you have to pay for it to watch ANY channel. Which means that politically un-neutral commentary (which should be PROTECTED) is forced to indirectly fund the BBC's idea of 'politically neutral,' which could be anything at any time, depending on who's in charge.
>> It also funds the BBC website - which is easily one of the best news sites around (note how often it gets submitted here, and upvoted, as opposed to other general news sites :))
Got me there; I don't have a problem with the BBC website. I rather like it, actually. Aside from the fact that it's paid for by taxes. Notice how if you watch TV but don't happen to have a computer + internet, you're still paying for a website you can't even access?
>> Additionally it funds iPlayer - HD streaming of BBC content. Again, yet to see a commercial offering as slick.
>> Finally the tax funds Ofcomm which regulates all TV - I think this is one of the main reasons we aren't suffering shoddy corrupted TV :D
We have the FCC; how is that different? Censorship, just what the world needs! Why let people pay for what they enjoy and not pay for what they don't enjoy, when we can just let the government tell us what is and isn't "quality programming"?
>> People are used to solid hours of content with no advertising on te BBC - which means other channels cant get away with as much as certain other countries cram in. Example: Channel 5 shows CSI from 9pm on Tuesdays. It has 10-12 minutes of advertising between segments
Firstly, CSI is an American franchise. Advertisements over here are likely making up the difference for those smaller commercial breaks over there.
Secondly, this is EXACTLY the process by which a little bit of government interference can sometimes completely distort a market. Suppose (hypothetically, now) that shorter commercial breaks aren't cost-effective enough to produce certain quality shows. But the State (having appropriated your money already) can afford to eliminate commercials on its channels. Like you said, this changes the standards that private companies have to live up to. In many markets to the point where it simply isn't worth it to do what they do, or to do it as well as they could.
Yes, US television companies have _plenty_ of problems.
The way things are going, though, advertisements aren't really one of them any more. DVRs, Hulu, Etc. It's only a matter of time before the advertisement/quality ratio balances back out. And what set us off is this direction? Well, it wasn't the efforts of government. It was the internet (decidedly UNregulated) and new hardware like DVRs (time to tax those, too?) that have made us less reliant on the whims of the TV industry, an oligopoly which is largely the result of government regulation to begin with.
>> So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get (7 BBC channels and guaranteed between 3 and 10 other, well regulated, free-to-air channels plus the BBC website).
I like BBC channels, too. I even listen to BBC radio from this side of the pond. But you can't say one way or the other what kind of television you might have if the BBC didn't exist, because it's been with you since 1932. Maybe you'd have even BETTER television if the BBC wasn't taking up market share that could otherwise be utilized by broadcasters who are actually accountable to their viewers (and their viewers' wallets)? Our personal taste in television is no basis for government programs that are funded by taking other peoples' money.
>> Certainly I'd never consider paying for cable channels in the way other countries do :(
That's great; neither would I. And the very fact that I have a CHOICE not to pay for something that I DON'T WANT is the matter at hand. But with tax-funded television, what are my options? I guess, like you said, I could just not watch any television at all. But I'd rather that the government and all the busybodies of the world would just keep their thieving hands to themselves, and let me pay only for the TV that I want, like a sensible civilization would.
Yes, things could be better. There are solutions to our many television problems, and all of them involve LESS government, NOT more.
I know there is a lot of criticism. And you should never believe any media agency outright. But generally the BBC are pretty good. A lot better than Fox / Sky etc :P
They do a lot of good special interest programming like Horizon which plays at difficult questions/subjects really well.
> Secondly, this is EXACTLY the process by which a little bit of government interference can sometimes completely distort a market.
The BBC is NOT a government body. It IS state funded, yes, but it is a separate entity with a board a charter and lots of non-governmental oversight.
> Yeah, speaking of that: "BBC blocks open source video players"
True, a bit of a hiccup there. I cant believe their timing on such a fuck up too :( really screwed my argument
> We have the FCC; how is that different?
It's very different. Ofcomm is actually heavily consumer oriented and they seem to find a good balance between restricting content and being sensible. Certainly they are very unlike the FCC in my (reasonably limited) experience.
> Firstly, CSI is an American franchise. Advertisements over here are likely making up the difference for those smaller commercial breaks over there.
Im not sure it is. Channel 5 will pay a fixed rate to show the CSI franchise over here. They can make that money back in whatever way they want/need. Also I dont think it equates like that (I have no figures but I watched a documentary on CSI a few months ago that said most of the franchise's revenue comes from overseas licencing).
> But you can't say one way or the other what kind of television you might have if the BBC didn't exist, because it's been with you since 1932.
Perhaps true. But the BBC is reasonably unique. And in my opinion (and it really is my opinion, but I know others share it) we have the best TV programing in the world. A mix of all things
> There are solutions to our many television problems, and all of them involve LESS government, NOT more.
As I mentioned - there is a difference between tax funded and government owned. Italy has govt. owned TV (also their PM owns a shed load of the network) and I would never recommend anything like that!
But tax funded is pretty good because it's answerable to us, the viewers. Which is nice.
> that could otherwise be utilized by broadcasters who are actually accountable to their viewers (and their viewers' wallets)?
I guess ultimately it's not clear outside the UK what the BBC actually is. Hopefully I've explained it better. I think the BBC is MUCH more accountable to us viewers than pretty much any other network I've seen.
(Also we get major sports and other stuff on the free channels (olympics, world cup etc.) which I think is a huge bonus. For me it's worth it just for that :))
>> The BBC is NOT a government body. It IS state funded, yes, but it is a separate entity with a board a charter and lots of non-governmental oversight.
>> there is a difference between tax funded and government owned.
Okay, yes, that was poor wording on my part. Whether truly State-run or some sort of tax-funded NGO, though, the premise is more or less the same. He who has the gold makes the rules, and in this case, the BBC's funding is a result of legislation, not the direct choices of voluntary customers. You're right, there is a difference, and I was conflating the two for the sake of my argument. I still would not say that they're answerable to the viewers, however, even if it is more responsive to public opinion than outright State-owned TV would be.
>> And in my opinion (and it really is my opinion, but I know others share it) we have the best TV programing in the world.
This could be; won't argue with you there. This is still not an acceptable premise for spending other peoples' money to promote subjective matters of taste, though. Government and culture don't mix, on the same basis that government and religion don't mix.
>> I think the BBC is MUCH more accountable to us viewers than pretty much any other network I've seen.
You may very well be right; I wouldn't necessarily doubt that. But you have to ask, is the BBC seemingly more accountable than US stations because it is tax-funded? Or are there some other reasons why US stations seem comparatively less accountable/responsive? I tend to think it's the latter. There are plenty of explanations for why the television market is the way it is. Artificially high barriers to entry. Unnecessarily-limited broadcast spectrum. Regulatory capture. Practically all of our media being owned by the same handful of people/corporations. Situations ALL facilitated in one way or another -- you guessed it -- by government.
>> Also we get major sports and other stuff on the free channels
And here, we've come full circle: people are paying for this "free" content.
> But tax funded is pretty good because it's answerable to us, the viewers.
Actually, the BBS is not answerable at all to viewers. It's somewhat answerable to voters.
Suppose that 30% of UK voters wanted and were willing to pay for a porn channel and 70% didn't. If the BBC was perfectly aligned with voters, it wouldn't have a porn channel.
Note that the BBC still gets the TV tax from folks who pay their own money for a porn channel.
Not really true. The BBC trust is chartered to represent the license payers. The political votng has little to do with it. Hey mostly get viewer opinion from direct feedback and polling.
> Not really true. The BBC trust is chartered to represent the license payers. The political votng has little to do with it. Hey mostly get viewer opinion from direct feedback and polling.
The govt has control over the tax money so theoretically voters have some control.
However, the BBC free to completely ignore viewers.
You were arguing that viewers mattered to the BBC. They matter only when convenient, which is very different.
I'm really not as anti-tax as most of the American folks here, but ... yeah, no thanks. Of the various things that I think should be supported by taxes -- like scientific research, exploration, health care, infrastructure -- television in any form is not on that list. As much as I love NPR and PBS, I don't think they'd be better off if they were funded by taxes.
And since I can't easily or directly watch the BBC's coverage of the Olympics, then they're still acting against the spirit of the Olympics, which was one of my complaints about our not-tax-funded NBC.
I found the whole online coverage of these Olympics completely frustrating. I'd be willing to pay some kind of "online access" fee to allow me to watch the live coverage online because I spend most of my time in a room on my computer without a TV. Early on I tried to find somewhere I could watch the live broadcast from my area but came up empty. I agree, either NBC doesn't "get it" or they're actively trying to frustrate people like me.
In Canada, CTV offered access to both live video and recorded clips for these Olympics. On Windows, the service seemed to work seamlessly -- it did not prompt for cable providers, e-mail addresses, or any such thing. On Linux, the experience was less smooth. As the video relied on Silverlight, I had to install Moonlight. Through the first day or two of the Games, only the stable v2.0 was clearly offered on the Moonlight Web site, which did not support video from CTV or NBC (and which had the unfortunate habit of ballooning a freshly-launched Firefox to more than a gigabyte of memory usage). Later on, the v3.0 preview, which does support video, was prominently offered on the Moonlight site. Sadly, it performed poorly -- video ran at only about 5 FPS on my system, while consuming an entire CPU core.
In contrast, CBC handled Canadian coverage of the Beijing Games in 2008. All their video was offered via Flash, which worked splendidly in Linux. Almost every event was viewable, often without commercials and commentators. I am saddened by this backward step.
I feel the same way about ESPN 360. My ISP / cable provider doesn't pay them, so there's no way for me to get it. Even if I wanted to pay them myself, I can't.
