Given the recent furor over the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation here in the US, it seems an appropriate time to talk about access to content. Now personally, I don’t actually watch a lot of television – other than, obviously, Doctor Who. What I do watch, though, is (perhaps a bit oddly) skewed strongly towards BBC product. There are only two US shows I follow regularly, and the rest (all four of them) all come from the opposite side of the Pond.
The stickler, then, becomes access. How do I get to watch my shows? Well, my options are actually pretty bleak. Depending on what I want to watch, different networks here in the US will be the providers. There’s BBC America, SyFy, even PBS. Note, though, that with the exception of PBS – which has its own issues that I’ll address in a moment – these are cable networks. In fact, if I want to get BBCA, I have to get at least the 2nd tier of cable package. Remember – I’m watching maybe four shows all year, something like 40 episodes all told, for those being broadcast on cable. That’s comes out to about $12 a pop, before taxes, various fees, etc. For a single episode of television.
At least PBS is free, network TV. But wait! That’s not as straightforward as it sounds, either. PBS is the network that gets Sherlock. Eventually. Although the second series aired in the first half of January this year (and was available on DVD and bluray in the UK before the end of that same month), those of us in the US have to wait until early May for it to be shown on PBS. That’s four extra months – a third of a year! How do these people expect me to stay spoiler-free for four freakin’ months?
So perhaps you begin to see my dilemma. Either I have to wait months after the UK broadcast, or pay for a cable package I would never use except for a few BBC products (not financially sound, especially since I’m busy buying BBC products on DVD). Or use less… upstanding methods.
There are fairly straightforward but not strictly legal ways to get one’s paws on this content. Doctor Who is getting wise, and going out on the same date in the US as in the UK, which undoubtedly reduces the number of such transactions. But there are still poor saps like me who don’t get BBCA, and then have to wait even longer to get a sanctioned copy – that is, a DVD or bluray – unless they can make use of a friend’s timeshifting equipment (DVRs, and such) to watch it at a later, post-broadcast-but-not-by-too-much date.
I’ve seen articles (sadly, I can’t pinpoint any of them at the moment) that show through surveys that most people would rather pay a reasonable price for their content than get it illegally. That’s why I say I would love to be able to pay the BBC license fee to have access to the BBC’s programming here in the US when it’s being transmitted in the UK. This statement may sound mental to Brits, but really – I would get more out of that expenditure than I would out of paying for all the channels I’d ignore from a local cable subscription.
I’m sure there are probably bunches of legal and logistical reasons why this can’t be done (anyone out there who can tell me anything about the legalities?), but I would really like to see this idea at least bandied about by the Beeb. It’s a worldwide market. Especially for their flagship show (as I’ve seen Doctor Who described recently). Isn’t it time to take advantage of that market instead of trying (futilely, I might add) to crack down on Internet “piracy”?
Hey, BBC! Here’s my money – please take it!
The culture in the UK for
The culture in the UK for bashing the BBC seems to have reached an all time high in the past few years. At the same time as praising it’s impressive back-catalogue, it’s current successes and experiments, there is this perceived need to make it accountable for every paperclip.
The BBC itself has felt the need to apologise for everything. The BBC should make I Am Legend. It would understand the metaphor of being the last human alive, backed into a corner by slavering, gangrenous vampires.
A lot of the UK population get their information on BBC ‘issues’ from the newspapers and other UK based news gathering organisations, forgetting (or not realising) that all of these other groups have a vested interest in seeing the BBC done over. Murdoch owns News International and Sky, Fox etc, Richard Desmond owns The Daily Star, The Daily Express, Channel 5 and porn channels Television X, Red Hot TV etc… Paul Dacre and The Daily Mail love to bash the BBC on morality grounds but his own external business interests make him less than unbiased. they’re all commercial stations who seem to feel their way of doing things is constantly looked down on becuase they’re NOT the BBC.
The Conservative Party has always loathed the BBC and would love nothing more than to dismantle it. They’ve tried hard to make it grovel by holding them to ransom over the licence fee, whilst at the same time making it very clear that they feel the BBC should not be controlled by government – yeah, right.
There are people out there better placed to debate this issue than I am, however the old adage “you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone” is very relevant in regards to the BBC right now. I don’t and have never objected to paying the licence fee (currently £145/$228 per year). For what is the equivalent of about 40p a day I more than get my money out of it! I only hope it’s not too late…
A bargain at twice the price
Yeah, see, there's great stuff coming out of the BBC! Obviously, as an American, I'm not privy to all the politics involved, though I had heard the Beeb has been rather beleaguered lately. But it seems to me that if part of the BBC's problems are financial, then expanding the market somehow to let those of us in the rest of the world (who actually appreciate what they're producing) have access would be a clever idea. And the current fee is about half what I'd have to pay for a year of cable access. For better programming.