You are here

5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Tue May 21, 2019 3:51 pm

CS70 wrote:Not sure why "fleecing"? I am a Netflix customer and I dont feel fleeced at all. I barely notice the outlay...

That's what they rely on of course. To be fair, Netflix isn't too bad at the moment -- it's about the same as the monthly cost of the TV licence fee in the UK -- although there have been hints that the prices are set to rise.

I was bemused recently to discover my daughter was watching the Line Of Duty boxed set on Netflix when it was available on the BBC iPlayer for which she was already paying a license fee. Hence fleeced... :-)

But really, the fleecing term applies more to the likes of Sky charging a minimum of £22 a month for the most basic package -- double the TV licence fee -- and most customers seem to have to pay a lot more than that. And many also pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime on top because not all the latest hit programmes are available on all platforms...

Great content viewed by an high volume of people, each paying relatively little: what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all -- it's what we all want. I just wonder if it's possible over the long term when strong global competition is involved?

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27618
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby Eddy Deegan » Tue May 21, 2019 5:08 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:To be fair, Netflix isn't too bad at the moment -- it's about the same as the monthly cost of the TV licence fee in the UK -- although there have been hints that the prices are set to rise.

I was bemused recently to discover my daughter was watching the Line Of Duty boxed set on Netflix when it was available on the BBC iPlayer for which she was already paying a license fee. Hence fleeced... :-)

There are options - I'm currently paying £7.99 a month for the ability to have two independent Netflix streams at a time (kids!), though of course for more you do pay more. At £96/year that is significantly less than the £154.50 BBC licence, proportionally speaking and, as you rightly pointed out, it includes access to a good range of BBC content so from my perspective it would appear that the fleecing could be said to be on either side with equal validity.

I take your point about the other aspects of the BBC licence revenue (World Service etc.) and though we've all discussed this before my view was that this was best funded as a state asset separately from the licence revenue.

Hugh Robjohns wrote:But really, the fleecing term applies more to the likes of Sky charging a minimum of £22 a month for the most basic package

On that front, we are in complete agreement :thumbup:

I just wonder if it's possible over the long term when strong global competition is involved?

I have a strong hunch it is. There are giant players in various aspects of 'the modern way things are going' and it's clear there is a huge market worldwide for them. At least enough to keep some options open. And it is worldwide - my Netflix subscription works just as well in Amsterdam as it does in Brighton, for example.

It's also worth noting that the quality and variety of Netflix productions has rocketed over the last 3-4 years and that trend seems to be continuing. The same could be said of Amazon although they tend to be more film orientated. Netflix, on the other hand, has massive feet planted firmly both the 'traditional TV' and film camps, albeit the TV stuff tends to be more box sets and series, which for the consumers of that type of content especially is not a bad thing at all.
User avatar
Eddy Deegan
Moderator
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Some of my works.
Please consider supporting the SOS Forum Album project.
 

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby Zukan » Tue May 21, 2019 5:12 pm

If you really think about it we are out of pocket with all these changes for the simple reason that there are so many channels with their own sub models that to watch all the popular series across all the networks would bankrupt us.

I pay the tv license, I pay sky and Prime and Netflix....
User avatar
Zukan
Moderator
Posts: 8782
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 12:00 am

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby The Elf » Tue May 21, 2019 5:22 pm

What gets me about Netflix is that it's just one too many layer of 'give us some money'.

I pay a TV license that enables Virgin to transmit TV to me, and then I'm expected to pay yet again so that Virgin can show me Netflix?

Nope. I'll happily live without it.
User avatar
The Elf
Jedi Poster
Posts: 14553
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby Eddy Deegan » Tue May 21, 2019 5:29 pm

The Elf wrote:What gets me about Netflix is that it's just one too many layer of 'give us some money'.

I pay a TV license that enables Virgin to transmit TV to me, and then I'm expected to pay yet again so that Virgin can show me Netflix?

Nope. I'll happily live without it.

And that's a fair choice. I do not want to derail the thread (I've found the 5.1 discussion most enlightening!) and won't labour the point after this post, but from the way I look at it the 'superflous' layer in the equation is the BBC licence (unless you were to pay it for direct consumption of BBC content of course), because you cannot watch Virgin, Sky, ITV, Channel 4 or indeed any other broadcaster without it (do Virgin show BBC programming on occasion? I don't know, but if so you're paying twice there too of course).

The £7.99/month I pay Netflix is all there is for me. Nothing else. The BBC gets a little of that indirectly through licencing of their content by Netflix, as they should. My wife has an Amazon subscription which obviously I get the benefit of but I would be quite happy without that also.

Most (all?) of the 20-somethings I know get all their content from online streaming services. We live in fast-developing times and it's an unwise strategy not to adapt to them.
User avatar
Eddy Deegan
Moderator
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Some of my works.
Please consider supporting the SOS Forum Album project.
 

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby The Elf » Tue May 21, 2019 5:48 pm

The Elf wrote:What gets me about Netflix is that it's just one too many layer of 'give us some money'.

I pay a TV license that enables Virgin to transmit TV to me, and then I'm expected to pay yet again so that Virgin can show me Netflix?

Nope. I'll happily live without it.
And I'm serious about this... I'd happily pay all this money to the BBC if I really thought it could once again be the fabulous institution it was in the 1960s/70s. Our once great public service has been replaced by opportunist money-grabbing leeches.
User avatar
The Elf
Jedi Poster
Posts: 14553
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Tue May 21, 2019 6:04 pm

Eddy Deegan wrote:... the way I look at it the 'superflous' layer in the equation is the BBC licence (unless you were to pay it for direct consumption of BBC content of course), because you cannot watch Virgin, Sky, ITV, Channel 4 or indeed any other broadcaster without it.

I take the point... and it's partly for that reason that I don't see the TV LICENSE FEE* surviving as a concept for too much longer. A subscription model is the inevitable outcome.

It was obvious to me two decades ago that there was a clear plan being put in place to convert the BBC into a commissioning house for TV -- just like Channel 4, Channel 5, or Netflix -- but with a slimmed down (and less editorially independent) News service and a bit of Radio on the side -- although that could well have its days numbered too! At the moment the Radio networks have a relatively small cost line in the budgets, but it will start to look a lot more expensive when in-house TV production is faded out. Moreover, there are increasingly loud calls to do away with Radio 3 (too small an audience), and both Radios 1 and 2 (audiences already catered for by commercial radio)...

*Although technically organised by the BBC, it is not actually called the BBC licence fee for very good reasons, it's collected by a separate organisation, administered by several private third-party financial companies, and a handling fee is creamed off directly by HMG before the money is passed to the BBC for distribution -- and not all the funds raised go to the BBC anyway, as has been mentioned. Some of it even goes to pay for the UK's feeble attempts at rural broadband provision, while more pays for entire national networks of non-English-speaking TV for a small handful of pedantic viewers! :D
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27618
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: 5.1 mixes that are really just botched up-mixes!

Postby Eddy Deegan » Tue May 21, 2019 6:17 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Eddy Deegan wrote:... the way I look at it the 'superflous' layer in the equation is the BBC licence (unless you were to pay it for direct consumption of BBC content of course), because you cannot watch Virgin, Sky, ITV, Channel 4 or indeed any other broadcaster without it.

I take the point... and it's partly for that reason that I don't see the TV LICENSE FEE* surviving as a concept for too much longer. It was clear to me two decades ago that there was a clear plan in place to convert the BBC into a commissioning house for TV -- just like Channel 4, or Netflix -- but with a slimmed down )and less editorially independent) News service and a bit of Radio on the side -- although that could well have its days numbered too... At the moment the Radio networks have a relatively small number line in the budgets, but it will start to look a lot more expensive when in-house TV production is faded out.

And likewise, point taken on the name of the charge ;)

Fundamentally I think we're all of a similar mindset when it comes to the BBC if perhaps coming from different angles. I would very much like to contribute to a high quality, independent BBC although like Elf I don't like the way it seems to be going as an organisation and I think it's a great shame.

Were the TV licence fee to morph into a 'true' subscription option then I would seriously consider it, as at that point the decision would be based on the content they provide as opposed to the current arrangement which I find so distasteful.
User avatar
Eddy Deegan
Moderator
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Some of my works.
Please consider supporting the SOS Forum Album project.
 

Previous