On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:21, Andrew Bowden <andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> The Strategy Review is irrelevant as this functionality could be used by ITV1 > HD and Channel 4 HD. > > The BBC's name is plastered over this because it holds the multiplex > broadcast licence (in the guise of BBC Free to View Ltd) and, as such, had to > submit the licence change. However the multiplex in question is used to > broadcast all Freeview HD services. > > So this is broadcaster independent and I would suggest the if isn't that > enormous. That's a fair point. > "Don't care. I just want to watch Glee/Heroes/FlashForward/Running Out Of > Programme Names For HD Imports/whatever in HD." > Actually I don't want to watch them at all, but that's the response you'll > get from many people. Don't care. Just want to watch it in HD. yes, but that's why we have a regulatory framework. you can't do something _just_ because the rightsholders demand it. that's bonkers. there are people who'd cheerfully sell their own kids to watch the season finale of some shows, but that doesn't mean a PSB should facilitate that. >> So, answer this: what right do the rights-holders have to >> make these demands of the broadcaster? (IMO, every right - >> they can ask anything they like, but it doesn't mean they'll >> get it) > > It's their content as such they have every right to demand it. It is up to > the broadcaster to decide whether to submit to those demands. If the content > proposition is compelling and - in commercial broadcasters - likely to bring > in some serious cash, it might be a decision worth taking. I think you're actually on to something in this: >> what right does the licence-fee-funded public-service broadcaster have >> to impose them upon the ordinary consumers (the only people who will be >> inconvenienced by >> them) without weight of merit and to lobby for them? > > As I mentioned, BBC Free to View Ltd is the licnece holder and rents space to > ITV plc, STV and Channel 4 for their respective services. > > There is the possibility that this request has been asked for by one or more > of its clients and as such it would be BBC Free to View Ltd's responsibity to > liase with Ofcom on the matter. > > I don't know the legal status of BBC Free to View Ltd - I'm guessing it's a > cost covering subsiduary of the main BBC corporation, and that therefore the > only licence fee money it gets is the money paid to it to cover the costs of > transmitting BBC HD and associated BBC services. that is a very important distinction. if it was ITV/STV/Five/whoever making the request, I'd actually not give a toss. (C4 I would, as they're a bit special, though not as special as the BBC). there's a lack of clarity here in that respect. _however_, who do people like Graham Plumb work for? AFAIK, he's BBC proper, not the subsidiary. _The Corporation_ has made representations in favour of this idea (rather PR-heavy representations, at that - possibly the single aspect of this I'm least happy about). This also makes the regulatory position more complex, too: whose "service activity" is the actual broadcast of the EPG? if it's the BBC's, or one of the subsidiary's, then it's supposed to need Trust approval to vary the conditions. that means another round of consultations. >> what >> right does the telecommunications industry regulator, who is >> supposed to operate in the interests of "consumers and >> citizens", have in approving this measure? > > Because it is the regulator for the broadcasting industry as well. Ofcom was > formed out of a number of regulators including the Independent Television > Commission. yessss, that's true, but that's not what it's remit _is_. it *regulates* the broadcast industry to ensure that it is operating *in the interests of citizens*. that's part of the legal framework which permits it to exist, and was reinforced quite strongly in the statement released the other day. >> > ...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme >> > could not be broadcast on Freeview HD? And how would you >> justify it >> > to them in such a way that they went "Yes, you're right" >> rather than "Eh?" >> "The rights-holder won't allow it". Exactly as you do with >> iPlayer, although frankly, I'd name names. Only within the >> industry is there a conceptual difference between "broadcast" >> and "on-demand" rights and differentials. > > > You could explain it like that, but do people understand it? Do people > really care for the reasons why Match of the Day isn't on iPlayer? nope, they don't care. they ask from time to time, but do they really care what the answer is? _no_ answer is satisfactory. > We can argue around this one as much as we want but I'm afraid there's one > simple truth. Most people don't care one bit and just want to watch their > programme. this is true. but that's the point of a regulator, and - to an extent - the means by which the corporation is funded: to weigh up the long term losses against the short term gains and ensure that fundamental principles aren't run roughshod over - we can all pretend the BBC is "just another broadcaster", but it's not. the fact that it's responsible for Freeview HD means either its principles have to be compromised (long-term detriment), or the rightsholders' bluff gets called (_possible_ short-term detriment). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
