Musing on TV in an internet age, the BBC and piracy

[erol]

For me this whole subject is one of great interest. The views expressed are solely my own.

The changes that have occurred to 'television' in my own lifetime (I will be 50 this year) have been massive, including several paradigm shifts. As a child in the 70's for whom TV in the UK meant 3 channels, BBC1, 2 and ITV and 'remote control' meant my dad telling me (often shouting to me whilst I was in another room) to come and change the channel for him, I have seen and lived through, first the incremental addition of channels to the historic '3' (channel 4), then the paradigm shift of the explosion of analogue, region based commercial satellite and cable TV broadcast systems, to the move from analogue to digital, arguably another paradigm shift, to finally what is to me the largest and most profound paradigm shift of them all, the creation of a (near) global, content neutral, service neutral, point to point and point to multi point distribution system, with the lowest cost barriers to entry ever know for distribution of 'TV', that is the internet.

part 1 - On piracy

The myth about 'intellectual property', piracy, of television, of music, of whatever, in the internet age, is that the problem is that people, normal average every day people, are in fact thieves. That they prefer and want to steal rather than to buy if they can 'get away with it'. Yet the real problem is not that people are thieves. The real problem is that commercial interests whose historic 'power' was the result of limitations as to what was physically possible pre the internet age, want to maintain that historic power even though those historic limitations no longer exist now we are in the internet age. They use the myth of piracy to actually seek to re impose what were historical real physical limitations and now are not, for their own interests and against those of the consumer - that they label as thieves. This is the real problem. It is something that I actually wrote about in the Telegraph, 15 years ago in regards to the music industry (pre the existence of Spotify , Dezzer, Tidal, Amazon Prime music or even iTunes store) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4488 ... eople.html

Reading this back to myself 15 years after I originally wrote it, the 'old' record industry has not died, it is still there but there is no doubt in my mind that their 'King Kanute' approach to what the 'internet' meant for them and more and most importantly for consumers, the people who's hard earned money had always fed and sustained the music industry, allowed the likes of iTunes Store and others to eat a considerable part of their lunch. It is easy to forget just how panic stricken the music industry was at this time and especially with the adding of 'Napster' to the the panic that the existence and growing mass adoption of the internet and mp3 compression and players had already caused. It is easy to forget how loud and focused on government and regulators their voices were - that this had to be stopped, that such rampant piracy would destroy the very act of music creation let alone their industry and that only legislation and legal restrictions being placed on what the internet allowed ordinary people to do with music could avert this calamity. Things are some what calmer now, though the same old myth is still used to try and stop us from being able to get the benefits that the internet makes possible.

part 2 - On the BBC (to follow)

[erol]

part 2 - On the BBC.

For me the BBC is undoubtedly a wondrous institution and a uniquely British one at that. Yes there is profligacy and waste and other problems within it, inevitably. Yes they did pay enormous sums to Jeremy Clarkson who in turn did punch some guy because he got a cold sandwhich instead of a hot meal. Yes Jimmy Saville. And all the rest. Regardless I still consider the institution to be wondrous and uniquely British. I do believe that they can and at time do create content of the highest quality any where in the world and often content that can only be created because of the unique way they are funded. Content that just would not be creatable in a purely commercial environment.

Yes I understand the arguments of commercial operators' that the BBC, distorts the 'market', that they have an 'unfair competitive advantage' over commercial operators. They are right. In free market economy terms the BBC does distort the market, it does have an 'unfair' competitive advantage - and yet I still say to these 'interests' - tough! I say to them you invested the money you did in distribution networks and content, knowing of the BBC's existence, so live with it. I see such arguments from such interest as little different as arguments from say BUPA that the NHS should be 'reigned in' or 'diminished' or 'dismantled' because it 'distorts the market' and has an unfair advantage. I do also understand the argument from an 'average person' on a modest income that is paying £20, or £40 or £70 per month to Sky and who either does not watch BBC content at all or very rarely, that it is is unfair to them, that they should pay £145.50 pa to fund content they do not watch or want. I understand the argument and yet still say to them 'tough'! In much the same way I would say 'tough' to a family that pays for BUPA health care and argues that they do not want to pay taxes that go to funding a NHS that they do not use or want.

For me this 'uniqueness' that is directly related to the unique way the BBC is funded as an institution not only means that it has been and is able to produce unique content that could not be produce but for the way it is funded. It also means it has massive potential to push and drive and lead the way in terms of using the new technological possibilities due to the internet, to benefit us the 'end consumer' of video content. To a degree it has done this. It did lead the way with making both live and historic content available online and that has driven other, commercial operators, to do likewise in it's wake. Yet is could do so much more in my view and specifically because of the unique way it is funded. Yet for me it actually operates in a 'climate of fear' today and increasingly so since the mass advent of commercial TV in the UK, since the arrival of Sky and others. I believe it feels under constant assault and I also believe it is under constant and growing assault. From multiple sources but primarily from commercial TV operators. These commercial interests carry much weight and influence, and not just because they are million and billion pound companies. They actually carry weight and influence far in excess of their 'monetary size' because they are in business of shaping and influencing public opinion as well. We can not rely on 'politicians', or by extension regulators, to protect the institution that is the BBC from such entities that really would rather the BBC just disappear entirely. Indeed there are some politicians themselves that would really rather the BBC just disappeared entirely. The only ones who can both protect the BBC and give it the confidence it needs to really drive the exploitation of the new potentials for the benefit of us, the end consumers. I say we, people of the UK, need to stand up for the BBC, in much the same way we do for the NHS. We should make it clear to both the vested interests and the politicians that the destruction of the BBC is not 'up for debate', in much the same way we do for the NHS. We should do this because doing so will free the BBC from having to operate in a 'climate of fear' and once that happens it will then be free to drive forward the real potential of the internet with regards to television, for the benefit of us - the people who use and consume TV and not the 'King Kanute' interests who only seek to limit and delay that for as long and as far as they can. To drive it forward in a way the only the BBC can do, because of the unique way it is funded. We need a BBC that is not afraid of the unique way it is funded, now more than ever. We need a BBC that is confident and proud of the unique way it is funded. Only we, ordinary people of the UK, can give it that pride and confidence and protection from commercial vested interest and short term politicians, bent on dismantling it, just at the very point in time we need it most.

part 3 - What a confident BBC that is proud of the unique way it is funded, could do for us in the internet age of TV. [to follow]

[turtle]

Although I largely agree with your views on the BBC you fail to mention the obscene wastage of public funds.
Tell us how much of the £145 actually goes to making quality programs?. My guess is 60/70% of programs are out sourced and bought in, they employ an army of middle & senior management paying huge wages and gold plated pensions not to mention grossly overpaid egotistical so call "stars" the whole thing is a grotesque bloated dinosaur and needs a major overhaul.
Just my views.

[erol]

Although I largely agree with your views on the BBC you fail to mention the obscene wastage of public funds.

Well I thought I had at least mentioned it in the first couple of sentences in 'part2' to be honest ?

Just my views.

Perfectly entitled to them and actually I agree with them. I want a BBC that is as efficient and cost effective and lean and productive without waste as is humanly possible, just like I want an NHS that is the same. However as important a subject as that is, it is not really the one I was trying to 'preach' about with this thread.

What I do not want is no NHS at all. What I do not want is no BBC, and most especially I do not want that right now - at the very point in time where the future of if the internet will end being used to benefit users over 'content owners' locked to a past that no longer exits, or 'content owners' locked to a past that no longer exits over users, is being shaped and decided. Or one that is so fearful of it's own continued existence that it is unable to drive and push forward all the wondrous things I hope to explain it could do in part 3, that current 'content owners' want to stop and delay and undermine as much as possible. If I ever get to find the time to write part 3 that is.

[turtle]

Yes Erol you did mention it but with the enthusiam of other BBC lovies ? You mention that waste is inevitable ? Why should we accept this.....do you accept this in your business ?

I would also point out that a future BBC MUST be non political and non PC.

[erol]

Yes Erol you did mention it but with the enthusiam of other BBC lovies ?

I do have a 'lovie' enthusiasm for the BBC but actually the point I am trying to make (and seemingly failing to make ) is that there is a 'new' reason why even those who are not 'lovies' of the BBC, indeed even those who do not even ever watch the BBC, should want (imo) the BBC to be strong and confident and free of fear over its own continued existence - right now.

You mention that waste is inevitable ? Why should we accept this.....do you accept this in your business ?

I accept waste as inevitable in the way I accept that friction is inevitable in a complex system involving motion in the real world is inevitable. Sure you want to reduce and eliminate as much of it as possible but outside of 'simplistic theoretical systems' removing it entirely is not possible.

I would also point out that a future BBC MUST be non political and non PC.

I think it must be as impartial as possible (see above re friction) and actually I think this is one area it does and always has excelled in - if the comparison is with 'commercial broadcasters'. It is only my opinion but I believe BBC news is has and always will be more able to be impartial than say Sky news ever has been or will be.

[turtle]

I do have a 'lovie' enthusiasm for the BBC but actually the point I am trying to make (and seemingly failing to make ) is that there is a 'new' reason why even those who are not 'lovies' of the BBC, indeed even those who do not even ever watch the BBC, should want (imo) the BBC to be strong and confident and free of fear over its own continued existence - right now.

The BBC needs to start and earn some of its obscene turnover from commercial activities, while ever it lives off the back of the public purse nothing will change.

[quote I think it must be as impartial as possible (see above re friction) and actually I think this is one area it does and always has excelled in /quote]

I have to disagree Erol, its well know in the UK that the BBC is so left field it's got a pronounced lean ?

[Groucho]

I do have a 'lovie' enthusiasm for the BBC but actually the point I am trying to make (and seemingly failing to make ) is that there is a 'new' reason why even those who are not 'lovies' of the BBC, indeed even those who do not even ever watch the BBC, should want (imo) the BBC to be strong and confident and free of fear over its own continued existence - right now.

The BBC needs to start and earn some of its obscene turnover from commercial activities, while ever it lives off the back of the public purse nothing will change.

[quote I think it must be as impartial as possible (see above re friction) and actually I think this is one area it does and always has excelled in /quote]

I have to disagree Erol, its well know in the UK that the BBC is so left field it's got a pronounced lean ?

Unfortunately as soon as a broadcaster becomes beholden to income from commercial sources those sources have an ability to flex their muscles so I am in favour of the BBC being publicly funded not the reverse... although more income from selling their programming should supply better self-funding.

I do agree that waste needs to be trimmed. Better control, better accountability. No political agenda.

Those who don't watch BBC programs should still appreciate the availability of much it to the wider community in the same way education and health care should be... You may not currently be being educated or have health issues but you want those around you to be educated and healthy. The BBC is very highly regarded world-wide as a paragon of virtue unrivalled in educating and news broadcasting.

[brian24001]

With the current explosion in the number of TV channels, I think it must be agreed that quality has dropped beyond all measure in favour of quantity.

The UK TV is full of low budget entertainment, and the huge number of channels must make caused advertising rates to plummet.

Our biggest concern is usually mentioned after watching programmes like the various David Attenborough series' to name just one.
Many of these documentaries involve filming that takes place over months if not a year or more.
Many of these are made with BBC funding or involvement and are exported all over the world.

If the likes of the BBC are lost, funding for the better quality entertainment will likely be lost. And the budget TV channels who seem to spend much of their time re-broadcasting 30+ year old series are not going to be able to fill the gap.

Like many things today in much of the world, everyone wants the best available, be it healthcare, education, lifestyle, but no-one wants to pay for anything.

I also think the EU/UK/BBC/Sky missed the point after the court case that made it legal to receive EU satellite channels throughout the bloc.

The exception was the BBC licence system that meant you 'should not' (not could not) receive UK sat TV outside the UK boundary without a licence in place i.e. places like Holland that have had access to UK TV for decades.

One solution was that UK Sat TV was moved to a different Sat with a smaller footprint, and 4.2m dish access was lost here in Cyprus and a number of other countries.

However, had the UK TV system scrambled the signal maybe for fringe reception, so a license was required to view on continental Europe, we would happily have paid the license fee (that we were paying for our UK house anyway) to keep the Sat quality reception.
Instead, with the reduced footprint, the advertisers for the ad-funded channels (Sky included) have missed out a multi million population opportunity.

[turtle]

There seems to be this notion that the BBC is fully funded by the public purse ? Take the Worlds Service on TV,.. that has adverts throughout its broadcasts, not a lot but some none the less, has that lead to poorer World Service ?.
The BBC also advertises its products all over the world in the commercial markets for revenue, it also sells the Radio Times for profit so it is engaged in money making activities just like any other broadcaster.

The obsession with hanging on to public funding is wrong and unfair.

[erol]

part 3 - What a confident BBC that is proud of the unique way it is funded, could do for us in the internet age of TV.

That the internet makes possible today things that were impossible yesterday is indisputable. That there is a battle being fought currently between those 'old world' mentalities and interest, who want the realisation of these new possibilities to be limited and shaped in ways that maintain their old hegemonies, in opposition to a realisation of the new possibilities that benefits us , the 'end user', is also to me indisputable. This is not only seen in regards to the evolution of 'television' in an internet age, it is seen in countless examples where 'old world' mentalities and interest clash with the new potentials the internet has created and who will ultimately get to benefit from those new possibilities. It is seen in the tension between 'old world' companies and mentalities that are part of the very infrastructure of the internet itself (old world phone companies) and 'new world' companies and mentalities and the interests of the wider 'public' and is being fought under banners like 'net neutrality'. Here I am looking at this 'battle' in terms of 'television'.

One of the most fundamental things that the internet makes possible in regards to television is the end of the dominance of 'geographical segmentation' in the production and distribution of television content. That the production and distribution of television content has historically been defined by 'geographical segmentation' of the industry is not a matter of 'divine right' of those involved in such endeavours. It is the result of the physical limitations of the world that used to exist before the internet. That an economic model for the production and distribution of 'television' could be produced that delivers the full benefits of the end of 'geographical segmentation' to us the end users, one that is fair and viable, is without doubt. As it is without doubt that some of those 'old world mentalities' are seeking to use their historic hegemonic power, created as a result of physical limits that no longer exist, to try to resist and delay the delivering of these new potential benefits to us the 'end user', not because such really threatens the entire 'economics' of content production and distribution and thus its very existence (essentially the 'piracy myth' argument) , but because it creates the possibility that they will end up not being be ones who commercially benefit from such in the future as they were in the past.

There is a battle between 'old world' mentalities and interest and 'us' the end consumer, in terms of when and if and to whom the benefits of new possibilities created by the internet for 'television' are realised. Ultimately which 'wins the battle' will primarily be decided by the weight of the sheer utility these new possibilities create but how long it takes can and will be influenced by 'them' and 'us'. There are forces on the side of 'new world mentalities' that are seeking to drive the benefits of the new possibilities to us the end users as quickly and completely as possible and by doing so become profitable commercial entities in their own right (like Netflix for example) and there are forces on the side of 'old world mentalities' that are seeking to delay this as long as they can, often using myths like the 'piracy myth' to do so.

So finally to the BBC and what role it can play within this 'battle' that I define above. The BBC does not own all of the content that it broadcasts, not by a long shot, It does however own a lot of content, historic and ongoing. When I say the BBC owns this content what I mean is WE own it. It is actually ours and what is more we and our parents and grand parents have already paid all the cost of its production. As owners of this content I think we should think very carefully as to how we want this content to be used. Sure we can decide that actually we want it to be sold for maximum short term return based on the 'old world' models of 'geographic segmentation', thereby helping to sustain such models that are based on physical limitations that no longer exist. However I think we, collectively, should not decide to do that with our content. I think we should decide what to do with our content understanding and within the context of the 'battle' I have talked about and not just based on maximum short term return indifferent to if doing so props up and sustained the 'old world' mentalities and models or not.

There was a huge storm when a report claimed not so long ago that BBC iPlayer was used by 50 million people outside the UK the vast majority of which had never contributed to the cost of the production of that content (paid the UK TV license). The assault on the BBC as a result of this claim was significant and material. It has in fact created huge pressures on the BBC to become part of the 'old world' mentalities, causing it to scramble to try and create better and more efficient artificial geographical limits that mimic those that were physical pre the internet and no longer exist post it. Limits that by the way are almost guaranteed to prove ultimately ineffective in any case. We are forcing them in effect to be on the side of 'old world mentalities' against our own interests in that battle, with our 'indignation' and 'outrage' I would suggest.

So what could they do instead ? What do I think we should want them to do ? OK let's take BBC Iplayer. Let's accept that it gives access effectively to 'current content' - the last weeks broadcast content or the last months. I say make access to such content (that which the BBC / we do own) free to all without geographical restriction - free to the world. Let us say it is our 'gift to the world'. I can hear the anguished screams of 'preposterous'. But wait a minute, such a proposal is not really about legitimising the right of someone in say China to watch and enjoy television (for the limited period of it being current - a week or a month), at no cost to them, when the cost of creation of that content has been born by us the UK public. Sure it would have that effect, but that would not be the reason to do so. The reason to do so would be for gain for us and the UK in general. Less direct gain for sure but real gain none the less I suggest. What value does it create for the UK to have our 'cultural values' exported around the world ? Or to put it another way, how many Burberry Jackets have been sold in China off the back of people there having watched 'Downton Abbey' (ok I know that is an ITV show but hopefully you get the point I am trying to make) ? How many people outside the UK might then also pay for access to such content beyond the 'one week' or 'one month' current window as a direct result of having seen that content for free within it ? So the argument for such 'Gift to the world' approach is twofold. It would create indirect value for the UK and, more importantly to me at least, it would place the BBC on the side of 'new world' mentalities in the context of the wider battle I have tried to outline above.

When it comes to access to that content beyond the one week or one month 'current' window within which it is free, then yes indeed sell it and make revenue from such sales that can be used to make more great content in turn, with less of a financial burden on UK tax payers to do so. But explicitly sell it in ways that puts the BBC on the side of 'new world' mentalities and not 'old world' ones. So sell it directly as the BBC itself, as 'bundles' or as individual programs. Or sell the right to do such to players like Netflix but base the pricing NOT on the sum of how many old world 'geographical segments' (countries) Netflix might reach - sell it based on how many Netflix customers actually do watch that content, regardless of their geographical location - something that itself is now possible with a degree of accuracy in the internet age that was not before it.

The same for content that the BBC buys. Buy it in ways that puts the BBC on the side of 'new world' mentalities and not ones that just reinforces the old. Buy it on similar terms to those I describe above re the selling of it. That is demand that the price is not based on the population size of the geographical area within which the BBC has its terrestrial broadcast infrastructure but based on how many people actually watch it regardless of geographical area. Sure such for terrestrial broadcast will be an estimate number and will in fact be principally people within the UK but the point is it will not also require the BBC to place arbitrary unnatural geographical limits on delivery of such content via the internet. If the 'old world' mentalities will not sell to the BBC on these terms, because they seek to maintain and perpetuate geographical limits that no longer physically exist solely because doing so benefits them at the expense of 'end users', then do not buy that content at all on those terms.

Part 4 - summary [to follow]

[erol]

1. you cannot under EU rules have public funded/State TV with Adverts
this rule mean that a poweful national government cannot use public money and
also take away funds from the private sector,making free TV ,paid for by adverts less

This is sensible and necessary but does not really affect anything, within the context of what I am discussing with these 'musing'. Models that both provide the 'benefits' to end users of television in a digital age (like the ending of artificial geographic restriction) and are compatible with advert driven content creation and distribution, are neither helped nor hindered by rules such as these as I see it. They are 'neutral' in terms of the 'battle' I am talking about.

2.You can pick up ANY channel broadcast anywhere in the EEA in any other part of the EEA area
if it is FREE TO AIR ,that mean it has no encryption ,and in the UK the acts state the names of
´BBC1,BBC2,C3 (ITV) ,C4,C5´

Not over the internet currently ? BBC iPlayer is geographically restricted (all be it pretty ineffectively) to the UK and not EU wide. There is pressure from the EU to change this and to a degree that is a 'new mentality' force but really it is not as it just seeks to change 'geographical limitation' from individual EU countries to EU wide, not challenge the very premise and need for such geographical limitations to exist at all, which is what I want to see be done.

3.The new rules for SKY not longer say that you can only VIEW in your house ,but that you have to LIVE in the address that
the card is issued to .there is no legal reason now you cannot take that card and box to north france and watch SKY.
But the Broadcaster cannot be made to sell any service in area area they do not wish

There may be no legal restriction on the person doing this but it seems to me there is a legal 'anomaly' in Sky knowing it has been done and not caring about it, given that they have paid the content owner only for the right to distribute that content within a specific geographical area only ?

[erol]

I AM ANSWERING QUESTIONS POSTED BY OTHERS IN THIS THREAD NOT JUST YOUR POSTINGS

OK, no need to shout. I am just talking about what I want to talk about, what interests me and thus am commenting on any post by others within that context, yours included.

2.You can pick up ANY channel broadcast

I personally remain unconvinced that this ruling alone means that it is actually illegal today for the BBC to geo restrict iPlayer access to other EU countries. I remain so mainly based on the simple fact that as of today , some three years after this ruling, the BBC does geo restrict iplayer access to the UK only. I may be wrong but that is how it seems to me.

beats me what a legal ánomaly´is ??? the ruling is clear - its in the title !
A system of licences for the broadcasting of football matches which grants

As I understand this ruling it relates specifically to 'sporting' events. However I do accept that the 'principals' are general even if sporting events can not be considerd 'copyrightable' where as say 'Breaking Bad' most certainly can.

I do welcome the EU's efforts to break down the historic 'hegemony' of 'geo restrictions' - really I do. I just want to see such broken down not just within the EU but globally too,

[erol]

That would require the European Commission taking the BBC to court . As normal they are doing it by talking all members with it

OK I think I understand what you are saying now. The ECJ made a determination on a specific case (the tv cathup one). In response to this and no doubt other cases the EU Commission is in a process of review and consultation to draw up new EU wide specific legislation, that in turn will then be adopted by EU Council. Given the rulings already given , this will mean that at that point BBC iPlayer will no longer be able to geo block to the UK but only to the whole of EU. Is that a fair summary ?

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market_en

I was aware in a vague sort of way of the EU efforts but let me thank you for bringing specific 'documents' (well website) to my attention. There is much in this EU 'policy review' (is that a fair description of what it is ?) that is of extreme interest to me and indeed meshes with some of things I have been trying to express in my musing. Just the title "Bringing down barriers to unlock online opportunities" is 'up my street' so to speak , though the EU of course is talking about EU wide, I am looking / hoping for global as the internet is itself 'global'. The areas of "Reviewing the Satellite and Cable Directive" and "Modernising copyright law" are of similar interest to me. The "Tackling geo-blocking" whilst of interest to me seem less to do with the specific subject I am talking about here (television) and more to do with e-commerce.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sponse.pdf

This document, from the quickest of scans, is also more about 'e commerce' geo blocking as far as I can see and specifically does not discuss 'copyright' - which is of more interest to me generally and in the context of what my general musing are about. Do you by any chance have a link to the UK governments views on the policy review that are about 'copyright' by any chance

No - national legislation which prohibits the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards is contrary to the freedom to
provide services and cannot be justified

OK let me be clearer - I think in essence and having looked at the documents you have provided (again thanks for doing that), you are in fact right (re no legal impediment on individual etc)

Again going back to what it is that I am talking about and want to talk about - the 'exciting' part about this ruling are

However, the licence agreements must not prohibit the broadcasters from effecting any cross-border provision of services that relates to the sporting events concerned,

and

that when calculating such appropriate remuneration it is possible to take account of the actual and potential audience both in the Member State of broadcast and in any other Member State where the broadcasts are received,

These , as far as I understand them, again mesh very closely to what I suggest should be the terms the BBC uses when buying content or selling it (not based on region but based on numbers viewing it)

[erol]

.....

Let me, if I may ask some questions.

Is the geo blocking that the BBC currently apply to BBC iPlayer (UK only based) illegal under either national or EU wide law ?

If I want to buy the rights to say 'Breaking Bad' so that I can make that content available to anyone within the EU who subscribes to my service, is there anything to stop the rights holders of Breaking Bad choosing to just offer me a price for those rights that is in effect multiples higher than the price they would offer if me my service was in effect geographically limited to a specific region within the EU, when based on a price per subscriber model ?

[erol]

you cant say WHITE PEOPLE ONLY or GERMAN ONLY or WOMEN ONLY ,now you cant say UK ONLY

I understand this, that I can not sell a service to say only men. However I can 'configure' the service such that in reality the vast majority of people who end up using it are men. So too, it seems to me, with geographical restriction.

...time marches on and they will work out a way for the future - how they sort that out is up to them ,as i say its normal to sell to DACH and has been for years

Time does indeed march on and surely these things will 'pan out' eventually one way or another. My 'argument' that is at the core of this thread is that actually how quickly these thing pan out and more importantly where the 'balance' between 'creators / distributors' and 'consumers' interests ends up being drawn, is something that should be of interest to us, as consumers. My 'argument' further suggests that rather than just being passive entities that can only sit back and watch and wait how these things 'pan out', we actually can make personal choices that can contribute to and affect how quickly these things pan out and where the 'balance' eventually ends up being. One such choice, I suggest, and the main one I talk about within this thread, though not the only one, is choosing to support and empower the BBC, which as a public service and publicly owned, creator and distributor of 'TV content', gives us 'skin in the game', that we would not otherwise have in a purely commercial environment of content creation and distribution.

I would very much welcome your view and opinions on this aspect of the discussion, though of course if this aspect is not of interest to you that too is not a problem for me. I do know that what is of interest to me may well not be of interest to others.