General BBC/EFL/ ifollow etc

[Sarge]

apologies if this has been done before

Most people pay for their TV and radio license ... which is for BBC Tv and radio channels, including digital radio.... yet when it comes to BBC coverage, local radio sport programmes, unless youre within the broadcast range for FM radio coverage- or if your radio is digital only, for league and league cup matches there is an embargo imposed for the duration of the actual match.
ifollow provides a pay for service (of sorts ) - with different services offered, not always delivered satisfactorily either, dependant on where in the world you happen to be.

Having paid for the BBC license, its annoying and frustrating that I service Ive paid for isnt available on digital radio for the 2 hours or so when match coverage is broadcast live. Yet ifollow uses BBC local radio match commentary - the same BBC that my license fee contributes the funding of, the BBC local radio digital broadcast that despite paying towards I am denied access to when a league or league cup match is being played!

my work takes me all over the UK, if Im in the FM broadcast area of radio I can tune in to radio Oxford and listen to the coverage, outside of that no digital radio coverage of OUFC's matches can be accessed while a match is being played. Yet Ive paid already for BBC services, including being able to hear live coverage of my teams games, but that has been taken away/ stolen from me due to a shady deal of sorts between EFL, ifollow and the BBC , which seems to me to be nothing but a cynical and calculated ploy to part football fans with their money. As Im often driving live ifollow video footage of matches are not a viable option for me ( and I can understand why there is a cost to provide a visual coverage of live game), however driving outside of radio Oxfords FM range , the BBC digital radio coverage ( which Ive already contributed to via my license fee) is embargoed during actual match times!

I think Im being short changed by BBC ( and fucked over by EFL too as it must be their end of the deal that causes the embargo?) ... or perhaps Im missing something that justifies the BBC failing to provide something Ive contributed towards but am not permitted to access?

 

[Manorlounger]

It is a very frustrating set up, not least because the iFollow service is so poor and subject to interminable "technical issues" The latest being the argument over switching off audio at half time, contrary to the club's specific wishes. (now resolved, thanks to Chris Williams)
The license to broadcast the match is obviously something the likes of you and I will find difficult to comprehend but no doubt, the EFL have tied it all up in some nice legal knots to make some more money out of us supporters.

On the road, if out of FM range we use a mobile phone, connected to the auxiliary input of the car radio, and use the BBC Sounds app or iFollow app if we want to listen to the game. Not infallible but the best that can be done.

 

[Marked Ox]

apologies if this has been done before

Most people pay for their TV and radio license ... which is for BBC Tv and radio channels, including digital radio.... yet when it comes to BBC coverage, local radio sport programmes, unless youre within the broadcast range for FM radio coverage- or if your radio is digital only, for league and league cup matches there is an embargo imposed for the duration of the actual match.
ifollow provides a pay for service (of sorts ) - with different services offered, not always delivered satisfactorily either, dependant on where in the world you happen to be.

Having paid for the BBC license, its annoying and frustrating that I service Ive paid for isnt available on digital radio for the 2 hours or so when match coverage is broadcast live. Yet ifollow uses BBC local radio match commentary - the same BBC that my license fee contributes the funding of, the BBC local radio digital broadcast that despite paying towards I am denied access to when a league or league cup match is being played!

my work takes me all over the UK, if Im in the FM broadcast area of radio I can tune in to radio Oxford and listen to the coverage, outside of that no digital radio coverage of OUFC's matches can be accessed while a match is being played. Yet Ive paid already for BBC services, including being able to hear live coverage of my teams games, but that has been taken away/ stolen from me due to a shady deal of sorts between EFL, ifollow and the BBC , which seems to me to be nothing but a cynical and calculated ploy to part football fans with their money. As Im often driving live ifollow video footage of matches are not a viable option for me ( and I can understand why there is a cost to provide a visual coverage of live game), however driving outside of radio Oxfords FM range , the BBC digital radio coverage ( which Ive already contributed to via my license fee) is embargoed during actual match times!

I think Im being short changed by BBC ( and fucked over by EFL too as it must be their end of the deal that causes the embargo?) ... or perhaps Im missing something that justifies the BBC failing to provide something Ive contributed towards but am not permitted to access?

The BBC have no control over the iFollow deal so they aren't short changing you. The Football League haven't sold the rights to the BBC for national coverage of these games to the BBC, only local (in Oxford's case which isn't universal across the country I think) therefore there is nothing they can do. I assume the subsequent deal for iFollow to broadcast local radio coverage is between iFollow and the various local radio stations.

And this is an attempt by the Football League to monetise coverage for their members. Iirc, one of the reasons Championship clubs are so angry about the new TV deal is it curtails their ability to utilise iFollow to increase income as it gives too much control to Sky therefore undervaluing the contract.

 

[Sarge]

The BBC have no control over the iFollow deal so they aren't short changing you. The Football League haven't sold the rights to the BBC for national coverage of these games to the BBC, only local (in Oxford's case which isn't universal across the country I think) therefore there is nothing they can do. I assume the subsequent deal for iFollow to broadcast local radio coverage is between iFollow and the various local radio stations.

And this is an attempt by the Football League to monetise coverage for their members. Iirc, one of the reasons Championship clubs are so angry about the new TV deal is it curtails their ability to utilise iFollow to increase income as it gives too much control to Sky therefore undervaluing the contract.

why is BBC digital radio 'embargo'd' ( but not FM) during league & league cup( not fa cup) match coverage, Ive paid my BBC license fee and I m being denied part of the service Im paying towards funding, it appears?

 

[Marked Ox]

why is BBC digital radio 'embargo'd' ( but not FM) during league & league cup( not fa cup) match coverage, Ive paid my BBC license fee and I m being denied part of the service Im paying towards funding, it appears?

Because it is the Football League's product and they have decided (under Collective bargaining) how the national product rights will be sold. Local broadcasting rights for individual clubs still exist, ie. Radio Oxford broadcasting locally, but these are limited by the National overarching contracts (ie. iFollow).

 

[OUFCGav]

why is BBC digital radio 'embargo'd' ( but not FM) during league & league cup( not fa cup) match coverage, Ive paid my BBC license fee and I m being denied part of the service Im paying towards funding, it appears?

Because the deal is only for local coverage not national.
It's the same sort of EFL licensing b******s that saw fan sites get legal letters for showing a fixture list (the EFL decided that licensing the fixtures for cost to newspapers was more important than advertising their product).

 

[Sarge]

Cheers for the explanations @Marked Ox & @OUFCGav .... Istill think Ive been cheated somehow- Ive paid me BBC licensing fee, BBC have a digital radio service included in part of that, which I can access anywhere I happen to be, except when my team is playing a League or League cup game

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I'd love the BBC to turn around and go, "Fair enough, we won't broadcast the match online at our end because that is your decision and they're your rights, but you can't use our commentary for your paid for service, because we are taxpayer funded and you are making money from selling it." If the EFL want the iFollow services to have exclusivity on digital commentary, they can use their OWN commentary that they pay somebody to do. Because as it stands, while they do indeed have the right to exclude whatever they like from their own rights deals, I'd argue the EFL don't have the right to use a publicly funded organisation to produce the content for them. I think that is what Sarge is getting at beyond the mere question of, "Why isn't it online?" I think he's saying, "Hang on, if those people producing the content are only there and being paid because they're taxpayer funded, then why is a private company taking it for themselves and charging for it? And if they're paying the BBC for that content rather than taking it for free, then how can the BBC claim to be completely taxpayer funded when they're essentially freelancing for a private firm, which means I'm not entitled to listen to their work?" I think people are looking at it from the wrong side. It's not the principle of who owns the rights to the match and therefore who gets to say what bits go where, it's who they're using to create the product they sell, and who is paying them.

I could be wrong, but I think that's ultimately the question being posed...

 

[Marked Ox]

I'd love the BBC to turn around and go, "Fair enough, we won't broadcast the match online at our end because that is your decision and they're your rights, but you can't use our commentary for your paid for service, because we are taxpayer funded and you are making money from selling it." If the EFL want the iFollow services to have exclusivity on digital commentary, they can use their OWN commentary that they pay somebody to do. Because as it stands, while they do indeed have the right to exclude whatever they like from their own rights deals, I'd argue the EFL don't have the right to use a publicly funded organisation to produce the content for them. I think that is what Sarge is getting at beyond the mere question of, "Why isn't it online?" I think he's saying, "Hang on, if those people producing the content are only there and being paid because they're taxpayer funded, then why is a private company taking it for themselves and charging for it? And if they're paying the BBC for that content rather than taking it for free, then how can the BBC claim to be completely taxpayer funded when they're essentially freelancing for a private firm, which means I'm not entitled to listen to their work?" I think people are looking at it from the wrong side. It's not the principle of who owns the rights to the match and therefore who gets to say what bits go where, it's who they're using to create the product they sell, and who is paying them.

I could be wrong, but I think that's ultimately the question being posed...

I suspect iFollow is paying for the RadOx coverage or it is part of the agreement between the BBC and Oxford United.

 

[Sarge]

I'd love the BBC to turn around and go, "Fair enough, we won't broadcast the match online at our end because that is your decision and they're your rights, but you can't use our commentary for your paid for service, because we are taxpayer funded and you are making money from selling it." If the EFL want the iFollow services to have exclusivity on digital commentary, they can use their OWN commentary that they pay somebody to do. Because as it stands, while they do indeed have the right to exclude whatever they like from their own rights deals, I'd argue the EFL don't have the right to use a publicly funded organisation to produce the content for them. I think that is what Sarge is getting at beyond the mere question of, "Why isn't it online?" I think he's saying, "Hang on, if those people producing the content are only there and being paid because they're taxpayer funded, then why is a private company taking it for themselves and charging for it? And if they're paying the BBC for that content rather than taking it for free, then how can the BBC claim to be completely taxpayer funded when they're essentially freelancing for a private firm, which means I'm not entitled to listen to their work?" I think people are looking at it from the wrong side. It's not the principle of who owns the rights to the match and therefore who gets to say what bits go where, it's who they're using to create the product they sell, and who is paying them.

I could be wrong, but I think that's ultimately the question being posed...

it is ...& well put too ...more succinct than me as well @RyanioBirdio

 

[MarkG]

Next you'll tell me that Kassam only lets us play in the stadium a certain number of times per year and that we can't use the exec boxes etc outside of football matches.

 

[tonyw]

I'd love the BBC to turn around and go, "Fair enough, we won't broadcast the match online at our end because that is your decision and they're your rights, but you can't use our commentary for your paid for service, because we are taxpayer funded and you are making money from selling it." If the EFL want the iFollow services to have exclusivity on digital commentary, they can use their OWN commentary that they pay somebody to do. Because as it stands, while they do indeed have the right to exclude whatever they like from their own rights deals, I'd argue the EFL don't have the right to use a publicly funded organisation to produce the content for them. I think that is what Sarge is getting at beyond the mere question of, "Why isn't it online?" I think he's saying, "Hang on, if those people producing the content are only there and being paid because they're taxpayer funded, then why is a private company taking it for themselves and charging for it? And if they're paying the BBC for that content rather than taking it for free, then how can the BBC claim to be completely taxpayer funded when they're essentially freelancing for a private firm, which means I'm not entitled to listen to their work?" I think people are looking at it from the wrong side. It's not the principle of who owns the rights to the match and therefore who gets to say what bits go where, it's who they're using to create the product they sell, and who is paying them.

I could be wrong, but I think that's ultimately the question being posed...

I mean, the BBC are not completely taxpayer funded, and haven't been for a long time.

In 2019, about 3/4 of their revenues were from the license fee, and about 1/4 (a whopping 1.2b) from other sources. Including, by the way, advertising - when I access the BBC webpages in the US, I get adverts all over the place. They also sell a ton of content to, for example, Netflix in the US.

Course it's reasonable that the BBC gets to monetize content it offers to me, because I no longer pay a license fee.

They shouldn't, however, be able to create content that is then monetized, in any form, to license fee payers.