Blocking iPlayer Live Streams

VisionMan

Marktheshark wrote: »

Saying someone has to pay the BBC because they have a computer which can / might / could be used to receive I-player has the same logic as charging a Dulux tax to people that own a paintbrush as they might / could/ can use Dulux paint with that brush.

So they must pay Dulux tax !

No, thats not the way this is going to work. In fact thinking about it that would be just daft!

Cornucopia

Have you got your crystal ball out again, Visionman?

They haven't said how it's going to work, yet. From what I can see, it's going to be very messy and even more confusing for people than what we've got now.

silverwhistle

VisionMan wrote: »

But I highly doubt (as in zero) this proposal will be extended to general internet on demand consumption.

Exactly! I have no issue with affording a payment, but as someone who gets free prescriptions I've never owned a colour TV, but have used the internet for over 20 years. I suspect my new smartphone is also fast enough to use for TV (though my eyesight probably isn't).

The government want people to use the internet for all sorts of offical purposes, but could potentially be suggesting for those who are short of money that they should pay another £100+ for the privilege of being online. I appreciate this government is quite keen on regressive taxation, but if they try it they'll get my middle class objections too.

VisionMan

Err.... excuse me but are people now suggesting that the govt and BBC are proposing that if people have the internet they would now have to pay the TV Licence? And if so, based upon what?

VisionMan

Cornucopia wrote: »

Have you got your crystal ball out again, Visionman?

LOL. My respect as always and I know you know more about the licence fee than any other person I have met, including me. But this proposal isn't an internet tax. They'd get crucified if they tried that again.

VisionMan

gjchester wrote: »

If you have a system capable of watching or recording live or catch-up TV then you will need a licence under these proposals. That means if you have a TV or any electronic device in the house that CAN do either then you are liable. CAN not DO being the keyword,..

Sorry, I meant to say I don't agree...

VisionMan wrote: »

I don't agree. these proposals will extend to all the PSBs catch up services. On my system, YouView, the ITV Player encapsulates ITV 1, 2, 3 & 4. So such a change makes sense. Theres been a relative explosion of internet content consumption in the last two years (smart TVs, Netflix, etc), so this change makes sense in regard to PSBs.

gjchester

Remember for the vast majority this is a non issue they already have a licence so its no big deal. For some who do not have a licence because they have no TV its a problem, but My guess is this is squarely aimed as the people who choose to watch catch up only to avoid the licence fee.


Remember the BBC is cutting back, do you think they'll have a complicated subscription system they setup, manage, and support, or will TVL will simply assume until proven otherwise that every household has receive capable hardware and so should be licenced as they currently do with TV licences as they are..


Its not about if you choose to watch the PSB channels, its if you are capable of doing so, just like currently even if you only watch Sky exclusive channels you still have to pay for a licence even though you don't watch any BBC output.

brewerdave

....and God only knows how they would police these ??proposals??

Cornucopia

VisionMan wrote: »

LOL. My respect as always and I know you know more about the licence fee than any other person I have met, including me.

Thanks.... who knows what I did in a former life to deserve it?

But this proposal isn't an internet tax. They'd get crucified if they tried that again.

Definitely.

The thing about this is that the Media and the Public never properly understood the old system. The new/proposed system needs people to have understood the old system as it is built upon it. I'm still mulling over the simplest way to explain it.

Certainly...

- it's not an Internet tax
- I doubt the BBC would be given additional powers to interfere with computers or to obtain usage data from ISPs
- a Licence will (probably) be required for iPlayer, ITV Player, All4 and Demand 5.
- There's the possibility of the commercial broadcasters splitting their VOD offerings if the number of non-Licence payers continues to grow.
- Sky, Discovery, Comedy Central, etc. are not PSBs, so can/could continue to provide VOD outside the Licence.
- Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, etc. are not broadcasters, so can continue to provide VOD outside the Licence.

Two things are certain-

1. This is going to be complicated to police.
2. People are going to be confused.

poppasmurf_bewdley

It amazes me that there are so many people complaining about paying the compulsory TV licence fee of about £12 per month - whilst quietly paying BT or other phone provider up to £16.99 per month for a landline and telephone service they don't want or need just to get broadband.

It also astounds me that someone is willing to pay £500/£1000/£2000 for a TV and then objects to paying £142 a year for something to watch on it.

This latest news is indeed good news that will hopefully catch all the !!!!!!!!!!s who have sucked off those who do pay the TV licence fee for long enough. The quicker it is implemented, the better.