I remember hearing RTD talk about that in the past, yeah. It's weird to think of how different UK TV is compared to US TV. We have so damn many channels, so the numbers each individual show actually gets are generally pretty damn low except for sports and prime-time reality TV. But then the UK has so few channels, and yet it seems to have the same systemic problem. I suppose population dynamics would explain the similar issues despite the smaller proportions?
It's too bad the UK doesn't (as far as I know) have a viable option for science fiction programming. But even if it did, I can't imagine the BBC would let Who go over there.
UK TV is split into a few 'bits'. So, like, there's the pre-digital, terrestrial TV channels - BBC1/2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. All 5 of these are supported by the government and taxes - the BBC entirely (thus no ads) and the other three partially (they have ads). By getting government money they agree to serve public interests - so that's why the BBC is so magnificent and must be protected, because it's not so driven by what sells. That's why the BBC can afford to spend outlandish amounts on things like Attenborough documentaries even if the figures don't add up, because their remit includes instruction to educate as well as entertain. Then there's freeview, which adds about 100 more channels that resemble US TV more. All that's free, and then of course there are paid premium packages like what you guys get with even more premium high-end channels.
There's actually UK versions of most US channels like Investigation Discovery or SyFy and so on, but unless the government dismantles the BBC (which the current right-leaning government would rather like to do, methinks) Doctor Who probably won't end up anywhere else aside from reruns (and RTD-era re-runs are a staple on a few freeview channels). It's a weirdly complicated thing, the BBC, because the British public own it. So there's an argument in their remit about - for instance - anything major continuity wise should be broadcast free, because it'd be wrong to do a Who movie for instance and require people to go and pay to see it in order to keep up with show continuity. When BBC stuff has gone to cinema (like The League of Gentlemen), it's been a show the BBC aired that is owned by its production company... but the BBC owns Doctor Who.
The BBC is going through some really interesting changes right now, and it all has quite a lot of meaning for Doctor Who, though it's not really clear how the impact will play out. There used to be the regular BBC which was all about public service and then BBC America, merchandise, DVDs and stuff like that were handled by BBC Worldwide. The main difference was that the BBC was
not commercial, but Worldwide
was - this was a way for the BBC to commercially exploit its properties without the thought of money poisoning the decision-making process in the BBC proper. Right now Worldwide is merging with the main program-producing part of the BBC, so for the first time ever those two ends will meet - and as one of the BBC's most profitable, internationally sold and commercially viable shows it could potentially mean big changes for Who in a couple of years. We'll see!
Ratings still matter to Who because it's an enormously expensive show and that sort of use of taxpayer money has to be properly justified, but I really hope the BBC remains 'pure' and safe as it goes through transitions. It's tough times for them as they have more stuff to do than ever but the government has frozen how much money they get every year for ages now. I hope it can maintain its current form or something close to it for a long time to come, as I think part of why Who is as brave and as magnificent as it is comes down to its unique structure as a publicly-owned broadcaster.
