Advertisement
Promo

Become a member of the ZDNet UK community

Jonathan Bennett

View blog's RSS Feed

Beyond the Code

or, how to win friends, influence people and make a living by writing open source software. It's not just about the code.

Follow me on Twitter as @jonobennett.

Tuesday 16 June 2009, 11:29 AM

The BBC needs to share its technology, not its cash

Posted by Jonathan Bennett

The Digital Britain report, which was due to be published today, will recommend that some of the licence fee be shared with commercial broadcasters to compensate for the impact the internet is having on their businesses.

This is completely the wrong approach in every respect. The licence fee is there to provide public service broadcasting, not to subsidise commercial companies that have failed to adapt to a changing world. Just giving cash to loss-making companies without making any other changes is bad business. However, it's in no-one's interests to see ITV and Channel 4 have to make cutbacks in programme making — to recover they need bigger, better audiences, not people turning off because all they show is repeats. While just giving them a slice of the licence fee isn't the answer, there is a way they can benefit from public funding.

The BBC has developed a wide range of technology around broadcasting over the internet and making content more interactive. It's been able to do this precisely because it's funded through the licence fee. Some of this is already released as open source software, but there's more sharing that could be done. One of the BBC's biggest internet successes has been the iPlayer. Auntie could share the technology that made this possible with the other UK broadcasters without compromising what's really important — the content. Similarly there's technology and expertise behind the BBC's excellent Red Button services that the commercial broadcasters could use to improve their services, and possibly increase revenue.

The commercial broadcasters don't have massive research and development efforts, so have to rely on equipment vendors, who in turn have to concentrate on markets where they're going to get a decent return — leading-edge, experimental broadcasting services may not be part of that. By taking advantage of what the BBC has been able to do outside of the commercial environment, our other TV stations can improve their offerings, rather than cutting them back, which benefits everyone in the country.

It's important in any business to recognise where technology is useful but not core to your business. Broadcasters are in the business of creating programmes, not distribution technology, so sharing existing code and designs cuts costs and improves services. Ideally this sharing would be done under an established open source licence to ensure fairness and allow further improvement of the code. The BBC could even get some patches back.

Comments on this post

SteveGJ

This comment has been deleted at the users request

Updated by SteveGJ on Jun 17, 2009 9:42 AM

SteveGJ

Stupidly missing the point about why ITV and Channel 4 are losing income. The problem is the collapse in advertising revenue because of two things - first it is often cheaper and more effective to advertise online. Want to see where ITV and C4 revenues go (and local papers for that matter). Go look at Google. The other reason is media fragmentation. Quite simply with many more outlets and channels audiences and advertising revenue are bound to be fragmented. Those are facts of life - the BBC losing viewers is no big deal. Their income is largely guaranteed by a hypothecated tax.

ITV, C4 and the like can cut distribution costs (and broadband is not really part of that - the advertising revenue brought in that way might help a bit, but it watch-on-demand fragments audiences even more). However, even if they can cut those sort of costs - programming of original material is incredibly expensive. The days when ITV could finance programmes like Brideshead Revisited or The War at War are long gone.

Why on Earth should the BBC be seen as the only source of public broadcasting? They are sitting very pretty with guaranteed income streams and programming. If there is to be public service broadcasting, then there is no reason at all for it to be a monopoly (and C4 was founded as advertising-funded channel with a public service ethos). The increasing BBC monopoly of terrestrial news, current affairs and serious documentaries is not conducive to a healthy public life. The BBC has been making an absolute hash of science programming (with very few exceptions) for the last decade.


Posted by SteveGJ on Jun 16, 2009 7:20 PM

chris K

I think C4 and ITVs difficulties are unlikely to be solved by a free iplayer license. The audience for Live TV has been on the decline since the Video Player came on the scene. There has to be some consolidation in channels and operators that reflect the marketplace.

Posted by chris K on Jun 19, 2009 3:49 AM

Jonathan Bennett

This member is ranked #12 in our top 100

  • Jonathan Bennett
  • Applications Development, London
  • Member since: October 2006

Site Activity Rating 5

CoreTechs

Contacts' Latest Discussions

Number of Tracked Discussions: 1,963

Jake Rayson Jake Rayson

A Tempest in a Nostalgic Teapot

Friday 4 December 2009, 2:39 PM

2 comments
Rupert Goodwins Rupert Goodwins

Google announces Public DNS

Friday 4 December 2009, 11:30 AM

7 comments
Rupert Goodwins Rupert Goodwins

I'm not sure that's true

Thursday 3 December 2009, 12:45 PM

8 comments
ator1940 ator1940

ACTA

Wednesday 2 December 2009, 12:07 PM

7 comments

Contacts' Latest Blogs

Number of Contacts Blogs: 18

Avatar David Meyer

Nokia halves smartphone portfolio

Friday 4 December 2009, 5:03 PM

1 comment
Avatar Karen Friar

HP workers set dates for strikes

Thursday 3 December 2009, 7:57 PM

2 comments
Avatar Rupert Goodwins

Google announces Public DNS

Thursday 3 December 2009, 5:57 PM

7 comments

Skip Sub Navigation Links to CNET Brand Links

Help

Become part of the ZDNet community.

Newsletters