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

Cornucopia

VisionMan wrote: »

Thats an insult.

To whom? To me? I can take it. Like I said before, I can't imagine what I did in a former life to be "rewarded" with an encyclopaedic knowledge of all things TV Licensing, but it must have been bad.

I told you months ago this was going to happen, you didn't believe me.

If that's what you thought we were talking about, then I must have been explaining myself really, really badly.

For anyone curious about what we're talking about, it is this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5258229

The discussion is somewhat circuitous, but it turns out we were both right:-

You were right that they were going to fix the iPlayer loophole.

You were wrong when you said that it was "Subject to Trust approval". It was never that, and always a decision for Government.

And I was right that covering all PSBs or even all Catch-up, as some sources reported it, was a step too far.

I'm quite happy with the Government's decision to bring iPlayer under the Licence. From a personal perspective, I always found it tedious when people made adverse comments regarding moral or legal deficiencies in the position of someone legally without a TV Licence that they would (for reasons unknown) never dream of making about someone with an ISA or a Zero Road Tax car.

The other thing is that for the first time in the UK, the legislation will single out the BBC for licensing, which is (ideologically if not actually) a stepping-stone to subscription.

chattychappy

Just as the purchase of TVs is now reported to the BBC/TV Licensing, under the new regime ISPs will be required to report visits to BBC iPlayer sites too?

callum9999

Cornucopia wrote: »

To whom? To me? I can take it. Like I said before, I can't imagine what I did in a former life to be "rewarded" with an encyclopaedic knowledge of all things TV Licensing, but it must have been bad.


If that's what you thought we were talking about, then I must have been explaining myself really, really badly.

For anyone curious about what we're talking about, it is this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5258229

The discussion is somewhat circuitous, but it turns out we were both right:-

You were right that they were going to fix the iPlayer loophole.

You were wrong when you said that it was "Subject to Trust approval". It was never that, and always a decision for Government.

And I was right that covering all PSBs or even all Catch-up, as some sources reported it, was a step too far.

I'm quite happy with the Government's decision to bring iPlayer under the Licence. From a personal perspective, I always found it tedious when people made adverse comments regarding moral or legal deficiencies in the position of someone legally without a TV Licence that they would (for reasons unknown) never dream of making about someone with an ISA or a Zero Road Tax car.

The other thing is that for the first time in the UK, the legislation will single out the BBC for licensing, which is (ideologically if not actually) a stepping-stone to subscription.

I'm not sure about that, there's no way the BBC could possibly survive as a subscription service - very few people would pay it when there's dozens of free alternatives.

I regularly extol the virtues of having a world-class public service broadcaster but even I wouldn't subscribe! If the license fee becomes too much of a problem then the only way forward I can see is to fund a scaled-down model from taxation and, most likely, approve commercial advertising - like many PSBs seem to work abroad.

Cornucopia

chattychappy wrote: »

Just as the purchase of TVs is now reported to the BBC/TV Licensing...

This was abolished in 2013.

Cornucopia

callum9999 wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, there's no way the BBC could possibly survive as a subscription service - very few people would pay it when there's dozens of free alternatives.

Problem is, that's a really bad argument for the BBC. You're basically saying it can only survive if people are forced to pay for it, and if they had a choice, they wouldn't.

Or in other words, they are being forced to pay for something they don't want, whilst at the same time the democratic process is failing to address the issue.

[Deleted User]

chattychappy wrote: »

Point is I went into a BBC shop, told the guy where I was going, spent a load of dosh on DVDs which then didn't work when I got there.

Why should the shop assistant know whether a DVD sold in the UK would work in various regions outside of the UK? If he genuinely stated that he did know and that it would work, then that's poor customer service I agree. However, a shop in the UK is only obligated to sell DVDs which work in the UK.

chattychappy wrote: »

nowadays, if I buy content, I want it to work wherever I am. Just like my razor or my towel. Else I won't buy.

So you only but illegal rips now? You already said the solution you found for the BBC DVDs was to make illegal copies of them. Region coding on Blu-Rays and DVDs remains, just as some internet content is available only in certain areas.

To be honest, I'm not sure this has anything to do with the BBC or the topic of this thread...

poppasmurf_bewdley

VisionMan wrote: »

Again agree. And will also include the ITV Player, All 4 and Demand 5.

You are correct. As far as I can see, the new legislation will apply when watching online content from any public service broadcaster - ie BBC, ITV, C4 and C5.

Cornucopia

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

You are correct. As far as I can see, the new legislation will apply when watching online content from any public service broadcaster - ie BBC, ITV, C4 and C5.

This is contradicted in the most recent official statement reported here:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/tv/the-legal-way-to-avoid-paying-the-tv-licence-fee/

Viewers of other catch-up services, such as 4oD and ITV Player, will not be required to purchase a TV Licence as long as they don't watch or record live TV, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed to Telegraph Money today.

See also the linked article for this thread:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2016/03/iplayer?_ga=1.95626334.352505392.1454067948

poppasmurf_bewdley

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is contradicted in the most recent official statement reported here:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/tv/the-legal-way-to-avoid-paying-the-tv-licence-fee/



See also the linked article for this thread:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2016/03/iplayer?_ga=1.95626334.352505392.1454067948

See paragraphs five and six of this article from Media Guardian, so it's anybody's guess:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/03/bbc-iplayer-loophole-subscriptions

Cornucopia

Media-industry hype.

Sky and BBC iPlayer with a Licence tie-in in "the same space"? The industry might see it that way, but viewers won't, and it won't in any meaningful sense be that.

In the end, there are only so many ways to fund the BBC. Some of the options present compromises - well, yes, that's often the case with public policy decisions.

Not that the current status quo is perfect, anyway. The BBC may applaud its own "universality", but it is meaningless when anyone who chooses can drop the TV Licence at a whim, when the very universality of iPlayer catch-up is supposedly costing them money, and when there are 200,000 prosecutions each year (typically of the poor and poorly organised).