11th June 2004

Re: BBC digital service review

I largely agree with the BBC's own report, but there are six specific issues which their report fails to address.


1. What is a TV channel?

It is often stated that the BBC now offers eight TV channels, but this is misleading. For example, on DTT (FreeView) we have:

1. BBC One
2. BBC Two
3. One "TV channel" carrying CBBC in the daytime, and BBC Three in the evening
4. One "TV channel" carrying CBeebies in the daytime, and BBC Four in the evening
5. BBC News 24
6. One "TV channel" split into quarters(!!!), giving BBC Parliament, and 2 news feeds
7. One "TV channel" which shows various content as and when required
8. One "TV channel" which shows various content as and when required

At any given time, ignoring the quarter screen services, there may be a choice of between 5 and 7 different BBC "channels" to watch. "Channels" 7 and 8 are called up by pressing Red and selecting a specific item from the menu, or simply selecting the channel directly. This is called interactivity by the BBC. There is no technical difference between these channels and the others, but the practical differences are that they are off much of the time, and there is no listing for what will be shown. In theory, these channels are used for interactive content linked to programmes on the named channels, but in practice these channels often simply offer something different to watch, much as BBC Two offers something different from BBC One.

This tortuous explanation is intended to show that, in this present review, and in their detailed regulation of the BBC's digital services in general, the government are paying attention to the wrong thing. Rather than concentrating on what the BBC have chosen to put on specific named "channels", it would make more sense to study what the BBC are delivering via the entire digital bandwidth (real estate, if you like) that they occupy.

The specific channels (or stations) are irrelevant. The programmes themselves, and the experiences of the digital viewers and listeners, are what matter. This is at the heart of most of the following comments.


2. More channels than content, or more content than channels?

In order to drive digital take-up, the BBC has often shown "important" content on BBC Three and Four first, and then repeated it on the analogue channels at a later date. This is a reasonable strategy.

However, there is some good content on Three and Four which does not make it onto the One or Two. This would be reasonable if One and Two were showing "good" or "important" content also, but there are many shows on BBC One which show little public service justification, and could easily be handled by the commercial sector. The lottery is one obvious example, but there are many other "filler" programmes that are little better than TV wallpaper (many have "wallpaper" as a subject! :) ).

Close inspection of the schedules of BBC Three reveals that most "important" programmes are repeated many many times. For a large part of the day, the audience of CBBC is not there to watch the channel, because they are at school. For many hours each week, CBBC, CBeebies, or News24 are simulcast on BBC One.

The obvious conclusion is that there are now more BBC channels than there is content to fill them.

However, I believe it is useful to have five channels of BBC content available at any one time simply to have a choice of live viewing.

Further, there are often seven distinct BBC channels available simultaneously via FreeView, because the "interactive" feeds are, in truth, two extra channels in everything but name.


To summarize, at any one time, the BBC could deliver 7 or more different TV programmes via its digital services, but often only delivers 3 or 4; either because some of the services are off, or two of the services are showing the same thing. At other times, the best content is on digital-only stations. At other times, the digital-only stations seem to be showing a diet of repeats. In short, at any given moment, BBC TV is not delivering the choice that it could and should.
 
Why is this happening? I believe there are two reasons:

Firstly, the BBC has become far too "brand aware", and is keen to build the brands of BBC Three, CBBC etc etc at almost any cost. This has got to be stopped; the BBC are not a commercial organisation (or shouldn't be!) and they should concentrate on delivering quality programmes, not building empires.

Secondly, the regulation (and this very review) is not appropriate for the digital age. The government strait-jacketed the BBC with so many commitments for BBC Three (and, to a lesser extent, BBC Four before it), and the BBC (near charter renewal) wants to be seen to be meeting these requirements. This means that the BBC are pushing digital switch-over harder than is good for them. It also means there are many things they could usefully show on the new channels which they aren't allowed to. It also means they are concentrating on channels and brands as much as programmes.

A better approach, which could deliver better choice and quality to the digital (and analogue) viewer, would be to highlight the areas in which the BBC are lacking, and allow them to address them as they see fit. Remove the harsh restrictions from the new BBC services, allowing them to innovate further, whilst requiring the BBC to respond to viewer's and listener's wishes.

By considering the BBC output as a whole, rather than concentrating on individual channels or stations brands, the BBC can deliver more to its viewers.


3. Content on existing channels is compromised

Some have suggested that the best new programmes have now moved to BBC Three and Four. This may be true in some cases, but often they are subsequently shown on One and Two.

What is more worrying is that Three and Four are carving out distinctive niches - niches that, if they existed anywhere, would have previously had their place on BBC Two. This has left BBC Two weak in comparison. BBC Four prides itself on being "a place to think" - there is a danger that BBCs One-Three will become places devoid of thoughtful material.

A specific case in point is the lack of good science coverage on BBC TV. This used to be found on BBC One, BBC Two, and BBC Knowledge. With the passing of BBC Knowledge and (dare I say it) the dumbing down of Horizon, it is effectively non existent.

The BBC needs to consider its output across all channels, and ensure that subjects are neither ghettoised nor neglected altogether.


4. Content on new channels often carries a permanent channel logo

The output of BBC Three, BBC Four, CBeebies, CBBC, and BBC News 24 usually carries a permanent on-screen channel logo.

This has been a point of contention with viewers ever since the practice commenced. Dialogue with the BBC has failed. The BBC has tried to make a case for the continued use of these logos. In order to address this issue, I have quoted a recent letter from the director general below, and added my comments...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our digital channels carry identifiers because viewers are not yet familiar with their programmes or characteristics, and to date only 50% of UK households are able to receive digital services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The percentage of households with digital is irrelevant to this debate, and it bemuses me that the BBC refers to this. The houses without digital can't get the digital stations, so you don't need a logo to tell them when they're watching BBC Three because they can't. The houses with digital have the channel name flashed up when they change channels. This is enough to know what channel you're watching.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognise that use of DOGs may not please or appeal to every member of our audience. In truth, almost every aspect of BBC activity prompts a range of opinion, such is the nature of broadcasting and the size of audiences we serve. Use of these logos is a pragmatic decision designed to help more people than it annoys, over a period of transition, as part of the BBC's role in encouraging the take-up of digital services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It helps the BBC to push their brand as if it were a commercial commodity. It doesn't help viewers at all.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst it is true that all set-top boxes have an EPG of some kind, none of these is controlled by the BBC, leading to many variations in the way information is displayed. In time, as they develop, it may indeed be possible to rely on them, particularly when there is close to 100% take-up of digital services and greater familiarity with channel identities among our audiences. But for consistency, and as an aid to identification for both real-time and time-shifted viewing, we continue to believe that on-screen logos provide the best means of channel identity for the foreseeable future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All EPGs display the channel name when changing channels, unless the user disables it. That's enough to identify the channel - if the user wants to disable it, it is their right.

As for recorded programmes - digital recorders like Sky+ and the Pace Twin store the information. The presentation links before and after programmes clearly tell you which channel you're watching, and are almost certain to be recorded onto VHS tape.

I have a question for the BBC: where are all these anxious viewers who record programmes onto video tape, but then cannot possibly enjoy them if they can't remember which TV channel they were taped from? I'd suggest that such viewers simply don't exist, except in the BBC's creative imagination.

From the viewers' perspective, there is absolutely no reason for DOGs to exist. All the feeble justifications put forward by the BBC are excuses for the fact that they want to push the BBC brand as aggressively as possible - and if this means slapping the letters "BBC" over as much broadcast content as possible, then that's what they'll do.

This is an arrogant attitude from a broadcaster that _we_ fund.

DOGs have no use for viewers. At best, viewers ignore them, and at worst, logos get in the way of enjoying decent content.


When discussing the picture quality on digital broadcasts, the European Broadcasting Union (of which the BBC is a leading member) said this month...

"If the delivery mechanism is a significant constraint on quality transparency across the chain, programme makers may be wasting their investments in programme production. Our public service mission calls for technical quality which does justice to our high programme quality."*

I suggest that covering part of the picture with corporate graffiti goes completely against this public service mission.

* EBU tech review April 2004, "Maximising the quality of SDTV in the Flat-panel environment", EBU Broadcast Technology Management Committee (BMC)

In summary, the channels logos must go.


5. Technical quantity/quality balance completely misjudged

On analogue broadcast systems, one broadcast channel provides capacity for one station, no more, no less. In the digital age that same analogue channel can accommodate a digital multiplex which itself provides capacity for several stations.

On all platforms, there is a trade-off to be made between the number of stations delivered, and the technical quality (sound and image quality) of each station. This is true on DTT (FreeView), DSat (Sky etc), DAB (digital audio broadcasting i.e. digital radio), and even digital cable.

There was a time when the BBC were judged in terms of engineering excellence. They had a reputation for quality - not just in terms of programme quality, but technical quality too. Recently, a BBC engineer described to me an experiment to set the quality on FreeView: "They dropped the quality to the point where they had lots of complaints, and then increased it a bit".

This is simply not acceptable. What the engineer described was only an experiment, and a failed one at that, but it illustrates the BBC's current attitude to technical quality: as long as most people don't complain, it's OK.

In fact, their attitude is worse than this on their digital radio stations. To introduce more stations, you really need more capacity (broadcast spectrum). However, it is also possible to introduce more stations by decreasing the quality of existing stations. Before any digital radio stations were launched, the BBC's DAB capacity was full with BBC Radios 1-5 and the BBC world service. The BBC then launched 1Xtra, 6Music, BBC7, BBC Radio 5 Live Sports Extra, and the BBC Asian Network.

This doubling of the number of stations resulted in a significant reduction in quality for existing services, whilst the quality of some of the new services is even worse. The only mention the BBC makes of this in their report is the fact that BBC7 is mono-only via DAB, whilst it is available in stereo on other platforms. However, all the BBC radio stations on DAB digital radio are compromised, some significantly so, apart from BBC Radio 3.


There are similar problems on DTT (FreeView), though these are less severe because, after the failed experiment reported above, the BBC _did_ apply for (and was granted) an extra multiplex when FreeView was launched. It's ironic that there have been reports that the UK could move to HDTV (High Definition TV) because people are viewing the current broadcasts on new high quality TVs, and they simply don't look as good as DVDs. The irony is that existing digital TV systems can look every bit as good as DVD (if not slightly better), but not while broadcasters insist on cramming so many channels into such a small amount of space. With the existing system, 2 digital TV channels in the space of 1 analogue TV channel can deliver DVD quality; fitting 3 digital channels into the same space can give slightly poorer quality. However, the BBC crams 4 digital TV channels, some radio stations, and digital teletext into each of its 2 multiplexes. The space isn't allocated evenly between channels, which means that BBC Two (which seems to be given the smallest slice of the pie) often looks very poor via DTT.


The government and OfCom seriously need to address the issue of technical quality on digital services. It was foolish of the BBC to launch new radio services without the capacity to broadcast them (it has been suggested that the failure to apply for the capacity was simply a BBC "mistake" that they do not want to admit before charter renewal). However, it is more foolish for the regulator to ignore such issues.

The quality of programme content is paramount, but the sound and picture quality with which programmes are delivered is also very important. The BBC has failed miserably in this respect with DAB digital radio, and often performs poorly on DTT. This must be addressed.


6. We have "FreeView", why not "FreeSat"?

FreeView is free. The programmes are broadcast "in the clear", you simply need a box to receive them. The system is open, meaning any manufacturer can make a compatible box, and anyone can buy one. You don't need a viewing card. 

Contrast this with satellite. At first glance, it seems the same: It's a little known fact that the BBC channels on satellite are also broadcast "in the clear", you simply need a box to receive them. The system is open, meaning anyone can manufacturer a compatible box - it doesn't have to be a sky box. You don't need a viewing card. This makes it sound like we have a "free" UK satellite service, but in truth, we don't, for two reasons.

Firstly (unrelated to this report, but important non-the-less) ITV, Channel 4 and five are not broadcast "in the clear" - they are encrypted, and require a viewing card. This viewing card will only work with a "Sky" box. These viewing cards are not freely available. This means that (whatever the BBC do) there will never be a truly "free" satellite service until channels 3-5 break free of Sky.

Secondly, the BBC services are "in the clear", but all the interactive content and the EPG (electronic programmes guide) functionality re tied into Sky's platform. Throughout the whole of Europe, there are open standards for interactivity and EPG information, and any other satellite box (of which there are hundreds available!) can work with these. However, the BBC have chosen to use the closed Sky standard, and _only_ the closed Sky standard.

Hence, though it is very good that the BBC services are "in the clear", it is also essential that, whilst they may support the Sky standard, they should also support the Europe-wide open standards so that their content may be fully enjoyed on any box.

FreeSat is essential to driving digital take-up, since much of the country is not covered by FreeView, and cannot be covered by FreeView until after analogue switch-off. There are technical advantages to each system, which makes competition (or at least a choice) between the two desirable, even when FreeView reaches near 100% coverage.

The recently announced £150 no-contract deal from Sky is not an alternative. There is no choice of hardware, installer, or provider. You must deal with a particular commercial company (Sky). The viewing card is guaranteed for 2 years only. The purchase locks you into Sky's proprietary system. The system is advertised as "free to air", but is in fact "free to view". Sky, and OfCom, should learn the important difference. "free to air" means the signals are "in the clear" and can be received with any box. "free to view" means that the signals are encrypted, but can be watched without subscription with a particular box and card. These boxes and cards aren't free, and they expire. Sky aren't a charity - they've launched this service to make money. That's fair enough, but it's important for the regulator to understand that what is offered is not a free satellite service.

It is essential that the government pushes for a truly open, free-to-air digital satellite system. It is essential that the BBC supports open standards on satellite. The move away from Sky's encryption to free-to-air broadcasting was a very good step, but now the BBC must embrace open standards for interactivity and an EPG, and the other UK terrestrial broadcasters should follow them.



Summary

In summary, I agree that the new BBC services have largely justified their existence.

However, I believe that the regulation and reviewing of specific BBC channels in the digital age impedes innovation, and should be lifted so that the BBC can deliver the best possible choice to digital and analogue viewers within its public service remit. In place of the existing strict guidelines for specific digital channels, I believe the BBC should be more responsive to the concerns of viewers and listeners. The BBC should deliver the best it can to both digital and analogue viewers, without penalising or favouring specific channels or viewers in order to hit regulatory targets or push digital switch-over.

Some areas of programming are currently weak across all BBC services, specifically science programming. The BBC must act to rectify this.

All the new digital TV channels regularly carry on-screen channel logos. This does not benefit viewers, and this practice must cease.

The technical quality on most digital platforms has been compromised by the compression of too many stations into the space available. The BBC must seek to resolve this issue, preferably by seeking more broadcast spectrum for DAB and DTT when and where possible, and by more careful use of the existing space in the interim. The regulator must pay more attention to this issue with respect to all broadcasters, both TV and radio.

There needs to be a viable Free digital satellite, and the BBC needs to be at the forefront of this initiative. This service must deliver "in the clear" broadcasts to UK homes with full interactivity and EPG information available using standard (non proprietary) satellite reception equipment.


Dr David Robinson
2004-06-11