Skip to main content

BBC, Channel 4 Say No Plans to Charge YouTube Users

Both the BBC and Channel 4 have said they will not be charging British YouTube users to view their content. The broadcasters spoke to UK newspaper the Telegraph, revealing that they will not be a part of YouTube's rumored 'premium service.'

"I can confirm that we will not be part of the "premium" specialist channels group that will be charging subscription fees for content," the BBC is quoted as saying, adding, "We're currently focused on broadening our audience for advertising-supported shortform and longform across our network of YouTube channels, as well as further developing our original content channels."

Channel 4 had a similar statement to make, with its spokesperson telling the Telegraph it wouldn't be part of YouTube's "subscription wall."

"We are always interested to see the evolution of the YouTube platform but we have no immediate plans to launch any content behind a new subscription wall."

Word got out earlier this week that Google was reportedly getting ready to launch a paid subscription service for a number of YouTube channels, costing as little as $1.99 USD each per month. This new move to a paid platform will apparently increase per-video revenues so that content creators can generate TV shows and movies with a higher budget than what trickles in from the current advertising scheme. Google is expected to announce something official by the end of the week.

  • abbadon_34
    "and so it begins..."
    Reply
  • JOSHSKORN
    But what about FOX? Yeah...I wouldn't pay for that, either.
    Reply
  • Aoyagi
    $2 a month is nothing if it removes the ad and featured content infestation, but I doubt something that good would come out of Google.
    Reply
  • CrArC
    10776181 said:
    $2 a month is nothing if it removes the ad and featured content infestation, but I doubt something that good would come out of Google.

    The problem is where we draw the line. I have to admit I'm even considering the idea of $2 a month as appealing if it removed ALL ads and improved performance. But then we've just enabled a subscription model for a currently free website. It's a downhill slope. More and more premium channels as posters are attracted to the higher returns. More and more crap on the free side of things.

    YouTube has no real competition so we'd be trusting Google's "not-quite-evil" attitude towards customers to mediate the process and prevent YouTube from being destroyed from the inside out. I'm not sure it's worth the risk.
    Reply
  • Aoyagi
    10776284 said:
    The problem is where we draw the line. I have to admit I'm even considering the idea of $2 a month as appealing if it removed ALL ads and improved performance. But then we've just enabled a subscription model for a currently free website. It's a downhill slope. More and more premium channels as posters are attracted to the higher returns. More and more crap on the free side of things.

    YouTube has no real competition so we'd be trusting Google's "not-quite-evil" attitude towards customers to mediate the process and prevent YouTube from being destroyed from the inside out. I'm not sure it's worth the risk.

    Well, Google would most likely have to regulate this. If they were not-that-evil, they would have an option to pay a small global subscription which would remove ads and add customization. Then again, I'm currently doing this with Extendtube and AdBlock+ so they probably get no money from me whatsoever. But if it turned bad, well, at least there would be room for a proper competition. Sadly, it would most likely be another untrustworthy company, like Microsoft, Apple or even Facebook.

    It's all going to hell.
    Reply
  • viper666
    >not using ad-block plus to remove ALL ads from youtube
    Reply
  • you'll be hard pressed to get people to pay a fee for something that's been free forever.
    Reply