TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
What technology? They don't make it themselves, it's bought in.
I don't really know how to rely to that... Source?

To shortcut this discussion, I work in the broadcast and smart TV industry and the BBC invent/pioneer/distribute tons of new technology, or set the standard that the industry follows. There's an immense technology entity in the BBC. Half the TV apps are built on a framework the BBC introduced. They defined an HDR standard. Etc...
 
I don't really know how to rely to that... Source?

To shortcut this discussion, I work in the broadcast and smart TV industry and the BBC invent/pioneer/distribute tons of new technology, or set the standard that the industry follows. There's an immense technology entity in the BBC. Half the TV apps are built on a framework the BBC introduced. They defined an HDR standard. Etc...

Yet the BBC is years behind Netflix etc..

And almost all of their modern content is garbage. They are scared to let go of the licence fee because they know no one will subscribe to them.
 
Last edited:
BBC has poor image quality, outdated sound, lacking in features and is generally lagging years behind all the main streaming services. As for technology I don't buy it. Most of the BBC technology is obsolete or old and what little they did would still exist by other people even if BBC was not around. Don't get me wrong going decade(s) back I think the old BBC was great and they did invent some useful things but the modern BBC is living of past glory. The modern BBC is a joke and not worth having, not like the old BBC which was great. The BBC doesn't set the standard that the industry follows anymore, BBC is years behind the standard.

As for the BBC and HDR credit isn't that blown out of proportion and the main HDR have nothing to little really to do with BBC. HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision. Then we have the DisplayHDR stranded like DisplayHDR 600 True Black, or DisplayHDR 1000 that has nothing to do with BBC does it?
 
BBC has poor image quality, outdated sound, lacking in features and is generally lagging years behind all the main streaming services. As for technology I don't buy it. Most of the BBC technology is obsolete or old and what little they did would still exist by other people even if BBC was not around. Don't get me wrong going decade(s) back I think the old BBC was great and they did invent some useful things but the modern BBC is living of past glory. The modern BBC is a joke and not worth having, not like the old BBC which was great. The BBC doesn't set the standard that the industry follows anymore, BBC is years behind the standard.

As for the BBC and HDR credit isn't that blown out of proportion and the main HDR have nothing to little really to do with BBC. HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision. Then we have the DisplayHDR stranded like DisplayHDR 600 True Black, or DisplayHDR 1000 that has nothing to do with BBC does it?
Reasonable points. They're not the powerhouse of innovation they were for sure, but they are still pushing new developments of their own at least. e.g. they did 4k live streaming first for TV (and I don't know if any other channel has done that yet). The HDR stuff is somewhat contentious as they've backed a different horse essentially, but their format (HLG) is still supported in TVs which is not insubstantial.

There's plenty of stuff they still advance, it's not all visible e.g. stuff related to distribution or content library and metadata tools. My original point being that they don't rely on the TVL for their entire budget and they do other work (technology AND content) as a means of income.
 
Makes me laugh that Twitter has labelled them "government funded". :cry:

I mean it's not true, and I can understand why they are annoyed, there is this popular misconception that the BBC is state run, but it's another reason why the BBC should be "set free".
 
Last edited:
What technology? They don't make it themselves, it's bought in.
I would strongly recommend looking at BBC R&D as you'll see yourself they have a massive hand in helping developing and pushing broadcasting standards and workflows, ie - HD as well as 'IP' workflows into studios.

BBC has poor image quality, outdated sound, lacking in features and is generally lagging years behind all the main streaming services. As for technology I don't buy it. Most of the BBC technology is obsolete or old and what little they did would still exist by other people even if BBC was not around.
Are you purely comparing BBC iPlayer vs Netflix or....? Have you got sources to data that backs up these statements at all or is it just your opinion?

But with the TV Licence, you're forced to pay it whether it's public (BBC) or private (ITV, etc.)
Can you explain how you're "forced to pay"? It's a 'licence' for watching live broadcasts in the UK; don't want to watch them, they you don't need to pay.
 
Last edited:
Are you purely comparing BBC iPlayer vs Netflix or....? Have you got sources to data that backs up these statements at all or is it just your opinion?
Pretty much streaming as I have never had a TV licence and like many people don't watch live broadcast TV. My source is Amazon, Netflix and all the others. As for source for years I have been able to stream in Dolby Vision or HDR10+, Ultra HD and Atmos sound and in a large category of content. As far as I am aware that is vastly superior to what the BBC offer and there content is tiny when we are talking Ultra HD with HDR. Do BBC even offer Atmos sound yet or are they getting near to a decade behind everyone else? Pretty sure BBC do not stream Dolby Vision or HDR10+ which is superior to the version BBC do stream. Overall I find the sound and image quality lacking with BBC. Now I did stop using Iplayer a while back so please correct me if they have updated it. If they have updated when did they do it and how many years after everyone else?
 
Do BBC even offer Atmos sound yet or are they getting near to a decade behind everyone else? Pretty sure BBC do not stream Dolby Vision or HDR10+ which is superior to the version BBC do stream.
Does the BBC produce a lot of content that has HDR/DV or Atmos to warrant offering it on iPlayer?
Also does, ITV/Channel4/Channel5 services offer HDR/DV or Atmos on their platforms?
 
BBC has poor image quality, outdated sound, lacking in features and is generally lagging years behind all the main streaming services. As for technology I don't buy it. Most of the BBC technology is obsolete or old and what little they did would still exist by other people even if BBC was not around. Don't get me wrong going decade(s) back I think the old BBC was great and they did invent some useful things but the modern BBC is living of past glory. The modern BBC is a joke and not worth having, not like the old BBC which was great. The BBC doesn't set the standard that the industry follows anymore, BBC is years behind the standard.

As for the BBC and HDR credit isn't that blown out of proportion and the main HDR have nothing to little really to do with BBC. HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision. Then we have the DisplayHDR stranded like DisplayHDR 600 True Black, or DisplayHDR 1000 that has nothing to do with BBC does it?

Come on be fair, they have had local HD channels for years, months, weeks! The days of the BBC in it's current form are numbered. As soon as the licence fee becomes a civil matter, I can see them having real problems. Most young people just aren't intertested in anything the BBC outputs any more.
 
Can you explain how you're "forced to pay"? It's a 'licence' for watching live broadcasts in the UK; don't want to watch them, they you don't need to pay.
You're forced to pay the BBC if you want to watch non-BBC live TV. Yes you can not watch any live TV broadcasts and not pay, but the whole point of the licence fee is to largely fund the BBC. You shouldn't have to pay company A if you consume from company B.
 
I don't think ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 even offer any 4k/UHD content at all. Think it's only BBC that ev3n offer it.
Quite and even HD is a relatively new addition to a lot of UK broadcasters catch-up services.
Still, it's funny seeing folk trying to compare global streaming platforms, that are worth many, many billions of dollars, with a UK broadcasters catch-up service...

huh-icegif-5.gif


Yes you can not watch any live TV broadcasts and not pay, but the whole point of the licence fee is to largely fund the BBC. You shouldn't have to pay company A if you consume from company B.
It's to watch live TV broadcasts, that's the long and short of it and you can opt-out any time.
If you want to bend it around to fit your narrative then have at it :)
 
Last edited:
It's to watch live TV broadcasts, that's the long and short of it and you can opt-out any time.
If you want to bend it around to fit your narrative then have at it :)

He's not really bending it to fit his narrative. I think you know that the licence fee is to fund the BBC but are being deliberately obtuse. For example, if someone watches live TV on Amazon Prime or Now TV using their PC, streamed via the internet, why should they have to pay another stealth to do so? The licence fee accounted for 71% of BBC funding in 2021/22 (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8101/).
 
Last edited:
Does the BBC produce a lot of content that has HDR/DV or Atmos to warrant offering it on iPlayer?
Also does, ITV/Channel4/Channel5 services offer HDR/DV or Atmos on their platforms?
Not that I am aware off. I consider all of them pretty low quality and behind the times in terms of streaming quality to end users. The way I see it is I have a choice where to get my content and for quality and technology BBC is to far down the list for me to consider being a good option for myself.
 
Let's be honest, if the license fee was only BBC services (and not any live/recorded live broadcast from anyone), and you could opt in and out like you can with Netflix, it would be a bloodbath for the BBC.
 
Back
Top Bottom