Slashdot Mirror
BBC Planning 'Netflix of the Spoken Word' to Take Radio Content Global (hollywoodreporter.com)
Georg Szalai, reporting for Hollywood Reporter: "The BBC makes the best radio in the world," says director general Tony Hall. British public broadcaster BBC plans to launch a "Netflix of the spoken word" to take its radio content beyond the U.K. Director general Tony Hall in a London speech on Wednesday said that the BBC plans to offer all of its audio content, in addition to its BBC World Service programming to people in foreign markets. He didn't immediately provide further details, including about whether the BBC would charge international users. The BBC is funded via a license fee covered by British taxpayers. "With our world-class content, we could use our current output and the richness of our archive to create a Netflix of the spoken word," the BBC quoted Hall as saying. "The BBC makes the best radio in the world. It is one of our crown jewels, and we have an extraordinary wealth of audio riches at our disposal." He added: "It's one of the things that will help the BBC carry the full weight of Britain's culture and values, knowledge and know-how to the world in the years ahead, and say something really important about modern Britain."
This actually makes me quite happy, depending on how they intend to implement it... I would happily pay for a subscription to receive BBC radio plays and topical programmes. As an ex-pat, getting BBC radio content has been pretty much based on buying CDs, or grabbing dodgy torrent files....
This tech has existed since dialup, and has improved only a little with new codecs and whatnot for niche scenarios.
So what exactly has changed? Licensing. Licensing has changed. The content creators/owners are now willing to use said technologies. Never forget that these limitations are not revolutionary in being overcome by heroes of content administrators. They are old and foul creatures slowly losing the sand between their fingers.
Basically they don't want to compete with the podcast and audiobook anymore. I'd say they were too late, but I know better. Users are just as slow to move as industries (example: landlines are still used a lot).
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
And called an RSS feed?
We do already have a Netflix of the spoken word... heck we have at least two.
Nevertheless, nice to see the BBC expanding it's distribution.
" The BBC is funded via a license fee covered by British taxpayers"
Not exactly correct although some would argue the license fee is a tax.
Every household has to pay the Television License (£145.50 per annum - £12.12 per month) if they have a device capable of receiving terrestrial television signals *and* it is able to receive signals (i.e; antenna connected), or if a person in the household uses the BBC Internet iPlayer service [0].
As well as video services the license funds several national radio services and tens of regional county/city radio stations.
[0] http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/
And what pisses you off the most is that it's really good.
And what station / time is your show on?
Hate BBC's opt-out "TV" licence. As if it's obligatory to watch their content.
No, but I have met, numerous times, that guy at the party who loves to interject in every conversation his standing gripe about how much he hates people who don't have TVs.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
This will be different in that it will likely be less universally compatible, requiring a custom DRM-encumbered app that is available only on certain approved platforms and they will charge a monthly subscription fee for it. Win-win.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Japan has a similar Radio / TV Mandatory Fee - even if you didn't own a radio or a TV.
For two decades, I've refused to pay - as do many Japanese.
I have nothing against a tax to pay for the excellent programming, but
please roll it into the price of a radio or a TV, and stop bugging me with additional payments.
PS: If anyone forced me to pay for Downton Abbey, there would be blood in the streets!
The BBC likes to boast it has a "massive" back catalogue,while failing to mention that the vast majority of it is very low quality recordings that even with the best efforts to lift it is un-broadcastable and also that most is also just low level trash that nobody wants to listen to..
Since its start up in 2002,BBC radio7/4 extra,it's dedicated comedy/drama channel has been playing the same 300 series and dramas..
They have a very weird system of buying a broadcast licence from themselves which allows 4 extra to play the same program/series 5 times in 3 years,which is precisely what they do.
If you had a logging tape 7 years long and just kept it on continuos loop mode,you would have the output of radio 7/4extra,they broadcast a few new plays etc on radios 3 and 4 but most of those are bad written/produced and a high percentage are depressing stuff done by women and aimed at women,if you don't believe me,just look at a week's worth of schedules for radio 4,the BBC has a positive discrimination system,it doesn't seem to matter if it's any good or not,if it's done by women and aimed at women,it will get air time..
Just like the BBC's tv output,their radio output has taken a massive hit in quality in the last 30 years..
It's why we got rid of our tv years ago,nothing worth watching that we hadn't seen 5 times before and no new quality output that wasn't dumbed down to knuckle dragged level..their radio output has suffered the same problem..
Yes, it's awful. All that varied radio output that's advert-free. Who doesn't prefer 10-15 minutes of adverts per hour.
And it's not even all music either, although there's a lot of it. There's Radio 1 if you're under 20-25. And Radio 2 if not. 6 Music is much much better because it's not really MOR and if you've ever enjoyed any indie music it's the one for you. Quite a few of the presenters have been in actual successful bands too, either with regular programs or one-offs or short runs. Members of Pulp, Radiohead, Elbow, Sleaford mods and many many others have presented shows. There are decent documentaries too (2-part REM from Sunday). Radio 3 is classical (and some jazz). Radio 4 is talk-radio with decent news presenting. You might recall the Director General of the BBC resigning a couple of year ago, in part because of the taking apart he got from the morning news program on Radio 4. (Don't think Fox News gives a Murdoch a hard time that often.) Then there are two sports channels too. It really is rubbish listening to something like cricket without any interruption. There's also Radio 4 Extra, which is largely comedy reruns, some of which is so terribly you may only have come across it when transferring to television and being massively successful. Then there's the short-lived stations like the digital only Jazz one that ran for a week recently.
So, yes, it's really terrible. Personally, I could point to individual daily programs that I'd pay the entire license fee for let alone the rest of the channel they're broadcast on, or the other stations.
Obviously, YMMV but BBC radio is pretty much perfect. (And apparently, they do TV too.)
If you can't find anything there worth your attention then you're really not trying very hard.
Isn't this a diluted market already that people don't really want to pay for? I had XM/SIRUS for years and with in the last two gave up on it because I just have too many other options and content to listen to. If I did "books on tape" I'd go with audible or some other company that's been around for awhile and have the bugs worked out.
Does that mean there will be two parallel services? You can choose any story you want, and have it mailed to you from London on a DVD in a couple of weeks. Alternatively you can take the streaming option, but almost none of the stories you want will be available.
...to try to deliver internet connectivity everywhere someday, could we please have back BBC World Service on shortwaves also in countries that are supposed to be connected, but actually aren't ? I travel extensively all along Europe, and having a *working* mobile internet connection fast enough for web radio listening is still a nightmare, and usually it costs you an arm and a leg, especially if you surpass your monthly data cap. I had shortwave radio on my car, and I could receive BBC without problems during my travels, but they turned it off, since "there is internet, who cares of shortwaves"....sigh!
A lot of people would pay money for a "netflix" of all the BBC-owned video content. There were rumors a few years ago about them making their iPlayer available in other countries for a fee, but it never happened. As it is, many people *cough* have to pirate some of their video content, because it's literally (the real literally, not the misused literally) not available to legally buy, rent, or watch.
I'm not even talking about some rare episode of some obscure show that ran for 7 weeks back in the 70s not being available in some small country. I'm talking about current shows, being produced and broadcast by the BBC now on an ongoing basis that are not available in the US. It's a pretty frustrating situation.
If the BBC offers a channel of only Scottish people reading the news, I'll subscribe immediately.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The BBC own very little of the Copyright to the things they put out on their TV channels.
The opposite is true for the Radio output.
Making an on demand service for Radio programmes that is available from anywhere in the world is pretty unique.
You can't compare it to XFM/Sirrus.
I'm talking about the spoken word and the Proms and all the other stuff that they do.
They have literally millions of hours of radio in their archives waiting to be re-broadcast.
"Lefthand down a bit"
{From the 'Navy Lark' Circa 1960}
I see what you mean, but I figure that they do own some of the shows that they broadcast. Eastenders, for instance?
Thing is that the BBC recently did a deprivation study where they invited people to opt out of using *ANY* BBC service and the BBC would refund their license fee for the period of the study.
This was of course offered to a self selecting group of people who thought the license fee was a waste of money. I for example would not be interested in taking part in such a study period.
The result was after just nine days of being deprived access to any BBC service 69% of the sample group of people who though the license fee was a waste of money and would rather not pay it did a complete U turn and where now happy to pay.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news...