TV Licence rip off - beware!

[Deleted User]

gjchester wrote: »

Its more complicated, more restrictive, and would cost more to administer and process, as you need a card per TV, but it's not in the realms of fantasy by any means, its a case of not doable yet, not it's not doable at all.

I don't think the BBC have any plans for such a draconian system, never mind the technology being available or the expense.

gjchester wrote: »

after all you can only watch one device at once.

You obviously live alone. What about families?

Cornucopia

gjchester wrote: »

Sky seem to manage it.

Not relevant - the issues for Freeview & Freesat are completely different.

There was a similar outcry when we went digital, Who would pay for new boxes, Well we all managed.

Some people received free boxes, IIRC. But it's a good point - would those people want to stump-up for another new box (or possibly more than one), just because Greg Dyke (then BBC DG) decided to remove the CAM requirement from the Freeview spec.

Putting in a requirement for a smart card to control subscription to Freeview/Freesat on all new boxes/tv's would be simple, if there a long change over period (3 to 5 years) then people will naturally migrate.

Its more complicated, more restrictive, and would cost more to administer and process, as you need a card per TV, but it's not in the realms of fantasy by any means, its a case of not doable yet, not it's not doable at all.

Exactly - which is what I said: "is clearly well into fantasy at the moment"

Sky and Virgin both do TV online catch up services, they use a username/password system tied to your account and allow a set number of devices to use it (3 I think), that could easily be done for iPlayer on tablets/mobile, after all you can only watch one device at once.

Hmm... The question is not how many devices one person can use at once, but how many devices can be used (ever) by a household covered by a single TV licence.

Like I said, the big picture is all very well, but it's the fine detail where some of these ideas will face some challenges.

VisionMan

Cornucopia wrote: »

Like I said, the big picture is all very well, but it's the fine detail where some of these ideas will face some challenges.

Its actually not that complicated to see if one has a TV Licence for the live features on the BBC iPlayer.

Want to watch a live stream? Click 'Yes, I have a TV licence.' That click then gets downloaded to software that checks your IP address. From that they can then get your actual address, and then cross reference it with the TVL data base. All automated. And at minimal cost too. Big brother. But its more than doable, if it comes in.

Cornucopia

Not sure IP addresses will work for this.

All prospective users of the live stream would need to be checked - some of those are bound to be mobile devices, some of which won't be registered to a licensed address (but that doesn't mean they don't have a home licence).

Then there are IP addresses that vary through DHCP.

Then there is the question of how accurate the data about addresses will be (it isn't very good at the moment) and whether this is a legitimate use for it.

The present system has a variety of flaws in it - some of which are intrinsic, and some are the fault of the BBC. What we don't need is a replacement that is equally clunky - or worse.

VisionMan

Good points. I stand corrected.

gjchester

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You obviously live alone. What about families?

No I don't but that's not the point.


Sky lets you stream to two devices or pay extra and get 4. A better idea would be a set number of concurrent sessions, so you can install it on multiple devices, but only stream to two or four at a time.


My point was its perfectly manageable at this point to do a subscription service, there's no technical reason they cannot do so for iPlayer to IP based devices (although not for smart TV's as there firmware may be fixed.


The only people who would lose out are those who don't have a licence, putting in a username/password is something we do every day having one more stored in an app is no different.

nsabournemouth

The biggest issue at the moment is some are a little sentimental about the BBC and it produces quality entertainment.

It does make some great TV. From your licence fee £6 goes toward iPlayer, People would probably be happy to pay that on a voluntary basis mind, not threats of court and prison. However, the BBC does produce utter !!!!, EastEnders, Homes Under the Hammer etc so I myself would probably not bother, I'd be quite happy to get stuff when it turns up on Amazon or Netflix.

Very little TV is watched in my home, we do subscribe to Netflix, we use the in laws Sky Go details on my Xbox for movies and sport. Sometimes if I'm about I'll watch the news, ITV or Sky News. There is no real reason why I should pay the BBC to do so.

Sexual abuse, crazy amounts of money being chucked about from a broadcaster who by threat of court and prison gets £3b per year plus funding from Europe. I can't see why some are so sentimental about it. The other argument is value for money, to me it isn't so why should I pay it?

The BBC has had its day, adverts or a paywall is the only way for it to be fair to other broadcasting people. A tax on every home will not work, it shouldn't even be considered but it is nothing more than a move by the BBC to keep things as they are. Even then, the BBC shouldn't see any of it, why can't they compete with Sky and the rest on the level playing field?

The below link takes you to the select committee discussion on the future of the BBC

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/

Cornucopia

Whilst the biggest proportion of viewers of the BBC do so through a basic Freeview STB or non-smart Freeview TV, there is a big practical hurdle to any form of subscription to the BBC.

The most practical approach to this IMHO is to split BBC services over a transitional period of 5 years into an ad-funded service on non-lockable platforms (ie. Freeview and Freesat), and subscription on other platforms (Sky, VM, iPlayer). This would also give people a choice and would enable the powers that be to assess the long-term desirability of both options.

Radio would need to be financed by either a central Government grant or by slicing money off the sub/ad income.

All of this would be made simpler if the BBC were smaller.

BTW, I don't think the BBC receives EU funding as such. It had a business loan from the EU to set up BBC Worldwide.

nsabournemouth

Cornucopia wrote: »

Whilst the biggest proportion of viewers of the BBC do so through a basic Freeview STB or non-smart Freeview TV, there is a big practical hurdle to any form of subscription to the BBC.

The most practical approach to this IMHO is to split BBC services over a transitional period of 5 years into an ad-funded service on non-lockable platforms (ie. Freeview and Freesat), and subscription on other platforms (Sky, VM, iPlayer). This would also give people a choice and would enable the powers that be to assess the long-term desirability of both options.

Radio would need to be financed by either a central Government grant or by slicing money off the sub/ad income.

All of this would be made simpler if the BBC were smaller.

BTW, I don't think the BBC receives EU funding as such. It had a business loan from the EU to set up BBC Worldwide.

You have to subscribe to watch Sky Movies, Sky News you don't. The technology is there for the BBC to do it, they choose not to.

The BBC had £3m of funding:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehousedaily/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/


Why on we earth would it need a business loan? It forces £3b from the public every year?

Cornucopia

nsabournemouth wrote: »

You have to subscribe to watch Sky Movies, Sky News you don't. The technology is there for the BBC to do it, they choose not to.

They are prevented from doing so by law (their Charter). And you don't get Sky Movies on a Freeview box, because the technology does not support subscription. The reason why it does not support it is because the BBC took it out of the Freeview spec.

Personally I think they should be punished for that act of sabotage. However, whether we like it or not, most people are watching via Freeview, and Freeview does not support subscription. Hence my suggestion of splitting the service into ad-funded and sub-funded. Let the public choose.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/17/broadcasting.digitaltv

The BBC had £3m of funding:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehousedaily/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/

Why on we earth would it need a business loan? It forces £3b from the public every year?

Presumably because they could not spend licence fee money on setting up BBC Worldwide, which is a commercial operation.