Matthew J. Ramsden

Foreign Affairs specialist, Founder & MD @comvuue, occasional writer. British, Irish and American. All views own.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

I assumed the paperwork would speak for itself. Apparently, it needed subtitles.

In all seriousness, I wanted to share this and where I am, in the hope it provides some clarity.

With that, I’m stepping away again. That is all.

---

Statement text for accessibility:
I had intended to stay offline for a few days and let the court filings speak for themselves. That plan proved optimistic.

To avoid confusion or unnecessary speculation, the statement below reflects my position. Nothing more should be read into the fact that I briefly turned my phone off.

I have been contacted by a number of people over the past few days, and rather than attempting to reply individually (and inevitably missing someone), I am providing a single statement that I can refer inquiries to. This has been written by my attorneys, so please understand that the legal components reflect their wording.

I can confirm that I have filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court against another party, whom I will not name here. The complaint concerns serious allegations and is now properly before the court.

As is typical in matters of this nature, the action addresses conduct attributed to that party and, where supported by the evidence and appropriate under the law, the involvement of others may also be addressed through the judicial process. The allegations will be addressed through the legal process, where evidence can be tested and findings made.

Because this is an active proceeding, I am not able to comment on the substance of the case beyond what is reflected in public court filings. Certain aspects of the matter may also be subject to confidentiality requirements or court-ordered restrictions, and it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment beyond what is properly on the public record.

I am grateful to the people, both personal and professional, who have supported me in recent days. I respectfully ask that the legal process be allowed to run its course. I have no further statement to make at this time.

[Michael SW @msolwilliams]

My letter to Matt Brittin on the extraordinary, unnecessary self-destruction at the BBC and its profoundly serious implications. @robinlustig @LauraPh222 @lewis_goodall @maitlis @jonsopel @GaryLineker #BBC #loveourbbc #saveourbbc

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@msolwilliams @robinlustig @LauraPh222 @lewis_goodall @maitlis @jonsopel @GaryLineker “Do you realise that W1A was meant to be satire?” is the funniest line you could ever write to a BBC exec 😂

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

Nuclear submarines get the so-called “Letter of Last Resort”, which is opened if the Today Programme isn’t broadcast on R4 longwave for ‘a few days’ as that’s when it’s presumed the UK has fallen.

How’s that gonna work now? FM, DAB etc doesn’t reach far enough. The internet could be severed yet the country may still exist so digital isn’t the best.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@undsupermegahot The BBC also does it, and whilst you think they’re the best public broadcaster and that’s what every other PSB is based on, they really do spill the same shit as their corporate overlords.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

I should say - I’ve seen the statement. It’s cryptically worded at best. Somebody reached out to CBC re: participation in ESC, they said that they “did not have anything further to say than was in the statement” - so yeah, they’re participating.

Does that now mean that since CBC, and potentially SBS soon, will be a full member, they get the hosting rights? Or does the geography preclude that? It makes no sense as yet.

Ignore my ramblings - I am trying to make sense of it.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@esc_gabe What exactly have they changed in the statutes? I know @CBCRadioCanada have been admitted and some Catalonian broadcaster is now “ancillary” but what exactly are those criteria? Particularly for ancillary, wtf is it? Hopefully to come out imminently.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

Yes, but not more than 7 minutes per hour so they don’t show them through the hydration breaks. ITV is still a public service broadcaster, hence why they are governed like this. Sky are not.

Looking at the rules, advertising can begin 20 seconds after a hydration break is called, and must end 30 seconds before it ends. Hydration breaks are meant to be 3 minutes.

But there was a case of overrun. At the opening match, the ref actually kept the players on the pitch before restarting because the adverts inserted by the U.S. broadcaster had not finished in time. Think about this happening for any broadcaster globally.

The BBC and ITV not being able to do this is an absolute Godsend, and Britain should be grateful.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@radioactivitii Fleur Anderson too!

https://t.co/S1wPF8aj5I

[Fleur Anderson MP @PutneyFleur]

My statement on the resignation of the Prime Minister

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@eurofan716 @groetjesnar This one is confusing to me. I thought the point of public service media was so it was independent of the government. So why should this stand?

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@makodi_jakano @spidey_simp @CasualSaturdays It’s only mandatory for live TV. You can still watch the on demand stuff on ITVX, My5 and whatever Channel 4 is calling their VOD these days.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@b75690 @GBNEWS Better value than Netflix tho

[Scott Bryan @scottygb]

What is overlooked in the BBC Radio 4 cuts is a simple fact:

94% of people use BBC content but only 80% of people are paying for it.

Until that funding gap is closed through Government Charter renewal, cuts like these are inevitable.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@AaGibbs_KU @mtgreenee Probably one of the few things we’ll agree on, but I’ll take it. Who seriously thought this is coming out of the taxpayer’s pocket? 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@koryodynasty “BBC New’s” ☠️🤦🏻‍♂️

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@kevinhollinrake @BBC https://t.co/L2AUy4bi9q

[Scott Bryan @scottygb]

“BBC is taking around 270 staff to the World Cup, many of whom are expected to stay in a five-star hotel, and 17 commentators.

It has estimated it will spend around £11,000 per worker, which means staff will cost around £3m, plus £1m for the glass studio”

The Telegraph in 2010

[sidy 📹🌱 @thevideoseed]

a copa do mundo sempre trás à tona um assunto que eu particularmente amo por ja ter trabalhado com isso nas olimpíadas rio-2016:

broadcasting

por que as emissoras mostram placares diferentes sendo a mesma transmissão? isso acontece por alguns o motivos.

mas antes de chegarmos lá, é muito importante entender que nenhuma emissora (seja ela brasileira, americana ou francesa) leva câmeras próprias para transmitir o jogo do estádio.

a transmissão dos jogos da copa, na verdade, começa na engenharia de distribuição desse sinal:

a host broadcast services (hbs), uma empresa da infront sports & media, é uma organização especializada em transmissões para eventos esportivos gigantes (como as copas, e, para jogos olímpicos, a olympic broadcasting services).

ela é basicamente o "sinal mãe". todas as outras emissoras "espelham" esse sinal para suas respectivas programações.

mas por que os placares mudam?

a hbs por padrão entrega duas opções de sinais de vídeo:

o dirty feed e o clean feed.

emissoras menores, focadas em redução de custos operacionais e de pessoal, adotam o dirty feed, que já sai da central de distribuição com tudo queimado na imagem: placar, cronômetro e todos os grafismos oficiais (em inglês) da fifa, precisando que as emissoras emitam apenas a narração em cima.

já emissoras "maiores" pedem pelo clean feed, um sinal bruto apenas com as imagens e sem sobreposição visual, que exige um investimento maior para rodar a infraestrutura necessária e operadores locais para processar os gráficos do zero e em tempo real.

agora, por que as emissoras fazem isso?

o primeiro motivo é pela soberania editorial aliada à retenção da audiência.

como a televisão é um canal que demanda hábito, então, "envelopar" a partida com tradução dos paineis e identidade visual própria faz com que a pessoa que está assistindo perceba a copa do mundo como um produto "nativo" daquele canal.

além disso, a independência de poder exibir o que quiser durante as partidas (com o sinal limpo, sem sobreposições) viabiliza um fluxo melhor de informações para a emissora que transmite para seu país:

se o narrador decidir focar em uma informação específica da partida, ou analisar a performance individual de um jogador específico, o diretor da transmissão tem liberdade total para exibir as estatísticas que o narrador menciona no exato momento da fala.

algo completamente impossível se ficassem "reféns" da direção de transmissão da hbs mostrando o que bem entender e sem contexto com o que o narrador do sbt está falando.

um outro motivo mais tangível para a escolha é o dinheiro.

o pacote visual da fifa exibe unica e exclusivamente as marcas dos patrocinadores globais do torneio, e utilizar esse mesmo sinal "dirty" equivale a ceder espaço publicitário nobre de forma gratuita.

ao optar pelo sinal limpo, as emissoras ganham a possibilidade de fatiar melhor os espaços e comercializar inserções para anunciantes locais, com mais contexto para o país específico, criando uma das principais fontes de receita que justificam e pagam a compra dos direitos de transmissão.

para fins ilustrativos, seguem imagens do centro internacional de transmissão montado em dallas para a copa do mundo 2026

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@mrdanwalker Many people point out one qualm. Mine is the commentator is talking about TV Licensing. Just unnecessary, I think the graphic is enough, or even something during the half time trailers.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

Very long reply- sorry!!

Makes sense - it is not normal to pay. The British have laws that say one of the public service broadcasters like the BBC has to air certain shows; the World Cup is included in that. But it costs a lot so two of our public broadcasters (BBC/ITV) share the matches.

And all 104 matches are free to watch on them (I work overseas a lot, so I have to use a VPN to access their content). Otherwise rely on local services which are usually awful. We have two subscription services like for Premier League & Championship, or live Formula 1 that costs ~£80 per month (€90).

But if that law wasn’t in place, it would not be free to watch here.

EBU (aka UER, Union européenne de radio-télévision) is a group of public broadcasters. They make the Eurovision Song Contest. The broadcasters across Europe all work together to further public media.

So sometimes they work together to buy the rights to broadcast big events, and because they are buying for pretty much all of Europe, they get a big discount. They then sell it to their members at the cheaper price, allowing those outlets to be competitive with what the big pay TV companies offer.

This is how they get the Olympics broadcasts, because the rights were sold by Olympics to Discover, and EBU bought the rights for their members and sold them much cheaper which is why that was mostly free to air across Europe; was it @FranceTV who aired most of that?

Just checked, @FranceTV, @ARTEfr, @radiofrance & @France_MM are all members so they could get the rights to broadcast anything the EBU resells.

[Matthew J. Ramsden @MatthewJRamsden]

@Thorney1974 @russell_oconnor “Please enjoy 6 minutes of adverts, 3 minutes of talking shit and then more adverts! Trust me, we won’t put shit pundits on(!)”