MSE News: Watching BBC iPlayer on catch-up to require a TV licence 'soon'

culpepper

Oh no! hahaha
If that is the case then we will stick with our netflix and amazon prime and the bbc can go and whistle dixie :P
I think doctor who is the only thing we watch on catchup anyway and we can always buy the dvds if we are desperate to see that.

wymondham

The BBC don't know how to handle payment collection is this new era. They can't do subscription as they won't get the numbers to make it pay, but their current outdated format of charging will collapse as the technology advances...

for the first ever I've sat down and thought about how much BBC content, and especially the 'live' aspect of TV in general. I mostly watch catchup so I, like many people will be seriously looking at why we pay for something we don't use/need..

LE3

I would fully support a 2 tiered licence system - "live TV" & a separate one for "catchup TV only" at a cheaper rate. If they charged £50 a year for the iPlayer licence, I think that many people would pay it happily - the software could be setup so you input your licence number & it blocks access to the "stream live" function if you have a catch-up only code ...

Though if I need to put a licence number in, what's to stop me just putting my Dad's licence number in on my device - unless you need a "mobile licence" separate to the main one - and even then will it be per household or per device?

There are a lot of practical questions that need to be answered here before it can become legislation - they cannot charge every household irrespective of whether they watch TV, if they do that they need to just add it to council tax!

I don't have a TV, I rarely watch TV but occasionally put something on iplayer/another catchup service whilst cooking dinner instead of the radio, particularly if somebody has told me about a great documentary. I do not watch soaps, daytime tv, reality tv etc
I will need to do some serious rethinking if I have to buy a licence at £150 to watch the odd thing here & there on iplayer, usually days after it was broadcast, not an hour later!

Paul_Herring

LE3 wrote: »

Though if I need to put a licence number in, what's to stop me just putting my Dad's licence number in on my device - unless you need a "mobile licence" separate to the main one - and even then will it be per household or per device?

The current system is neither - it's "per location that doesn't already have a licence if you're plugging it in."

HappyMJ

LE3 wrote: »

I would fully support a 2 tiered licence system - "live TV" & a separate one for "catchup TV only" at a cheaper rate. If they charged £50 a year for the iPlayer licence, I think that many people would pay it happily - the software could be setup so you input your licence number & it blocks access to the "stream live" function if you have a catch-up only code ...

Though if I need to put a licence number in, what's to stop me just putting my Dad's licence number in on my device - unless you need a "mobile licence" separate to the main one - and even then will it be per household or per device?

There are a lot of practical questions that need to be answered here before it can become legislation - they cannot charge every household irrespective of whether they watch TV, if they do that they need to just add it to council tax!

I don't have a TV, I rarely watch TV but occasionally put something on iplayer/another catchup service whilst cooking dinner instead of the radio, particularly if somebody has told me about a great documentary. I do not watch soaps, daytime tv, reality tv etc
I will need to do some serious rethinking if I have to buy a licence at £150 to watch the odd thing here & there on iplayer, usually days after it was broadcast, not an hour later!

I would support a paywall where you need to pay as a condition of watching programming on iPlayer. That would be fair. How about reducing the main licence fee by let's say £30 (not everyone can use online services so it could be argued why should they subsidize the people who have broadband and know how to use it) and if you wish to watch catch up then you pay £50/year then you can register for it and use it. Of course it will be easy enough for the tech savvy to avoid but it's something and won't be illegal.

donnac2558

minislim wrote: »

i think its time to end the TV licence altogether. i hardly watch any BBC programs. probably one or two at the most. Top gear and doctor who! and they are seasonal so i can go months without actually watching anything at all.

The BBC dont make any good stuff anymore. they've been proven to not live on this planet!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

So just because you don't like the big costume dramas they excel at, nature problems etc. They are sold worldwide and raved about. Its you not living in the real world. Top Gear, if that is your bench mark for excellence really says it all.

shinkyshonky

Pah ,culture secretary is he having a laugh, this will not happen , the guy cultures relationships with media barons, and he also wants to stop adblocking

callum9999

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I'm not aware of any TV channel that advertises itself rather than anything else, no.

And to the audience, what's the difference between, say, an advert for Panorama and an advert for a bank?





I can only assume that your strident denials that the BBC does far too much advertising of itself can only be a result of you actually working for them.



So, what *is* the difference between BBC news running an advert for Eastenders and ITV running an advert for toothpaste? Apart from the former being in the middle of a programme, and the latter generating revenue for the station that is.



You mentioned programme lengths vs the length of slots they fit in. I was pointing out the shortfall on that station available , and actually used, for advertising other BBC programmes.

The insidious is in the fact that actual adverts aren't being perceived as adverts. Not the fact that they are adverts. You can put that strawman down now.

Seriously - the BBC advertises. Mainly itself. It should put away the fig-leaf that it doesn't, take money for advertising things that aren't itself and get rid of the licence fee altogether.

And get rid of things like BBC News Channel (12 minutes of news, repeated 4 times an hour, when it's not showing the likes of Click) and the Welsh and Celtic channels. They cannot, seriously, be value for money.

NHK, the Japanese BBC equivalent, only advertises itself. The difference is there is reduced commercial influence with no commercial advertising. It may not matter to you, and doesn't actually matter to me either, but it's a fact.

"If you don't agree with me then you must work for them" is the argument of a moron. Unless I was a senior manager at the corporation, why on Earth would I care? And if I was, why on Earth would I be talking to you?

No, you listed a bunch of podcast lengths and then stated without proof that the difference between the programme slots and podcast lengths is solely made of advertising.

I personally don't know anyone who doesn't view a clip promoting a product or service as being an advert, but I don't know what kind of people you associate with...

The BBC has never stated it doesn't advertise itself, nor has it made the decision to have a license fee or not advertise commercially. It's the government that decides that... It's a public service broadcaster, news provision (of which BBC News is the most popular news channel in the country) and minority broadcasting are in its remit.

Cornucopia

pappa_golf wrote: »

In a keynote speech at the Oxford Media Convention,

some guy gobs off with his own Ideas and MSE think its breaking news

Where "some guy" is the Minister responsible, "gobbing off" is announcing the final details of a previously proposed policy change, and "MSE" is a fine source of online journalism with a general, financial interest.



More generally, I've seen a few wayward threads on MSE, but this one is all over the place.

This policy change has been on the cards for several years, and actually, of the various plausible options available, I think it's probably the common sense approach.

It won't threaten the status quo too much, but will address something that the BBC has had (probably unjustified) concerns about for some while.

Whilst I'm loathe to see things get even more complicated than they already are, I suspect we'll end up with three tiers of licence enforcement, at least as a short-term fix.

1. Enforcement at home will incorporate all TV broadcasts + iPlayer.

2. Enforcement away from home will incorporate just TV broadcasts (not iPlayer), but there isn't a huge amount of this enforcement, anyway.

3. LLF (Legally Licence Free) will be redefined as the catch-up and video on demand services of all broadcasters other than the BBC. Those people need to be wary of the changes as they affect TVL's enforcement approach (which is of questionable legality already).

chattychappy

What about the "loophole" whereby I can pay good money for a TV licence, pop overseas, and find that I'm blocked from watching any TV on iPlayer because of digital rights issues...?