Netflix, Amazon, other, in place of iPlayer?

[Deleted User]

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

This is not an argument you will win, I'm afraid, because it's not a matter of opinion.

A TV license is most definitely required for Now TV because it provides access to live TV broadcasts. You can indeed choose not to watch any, but you still need a license unless you specifically inform TV Licensing and can show you meet the criteria for exemption.

http://help.nowtv.com/article/TV-Licence

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence


Many Freeview decoders connected to the internet can also do this. License still required.

Fact, you are wrong.

VisionMan

Deleted_User wrote: »

I beg to differ. Apart from sports why would we want to watch live Nowtv with all the adverts and tied to a schedule when you can watch almost any program or film on demand when ever you want to? Yes you stream it but not from the live schedules which does NOT require a TVL.

Hi. I'm fully aware of the law, idgwiatbnrmse.com.

As per the link provided above, if one buys one of these boxes, as per the Now TV website, one has to inform TV licensing. Because its a TV streamer. Not that many will, mind.

[Deleted User]

almillar wrote: »

Moneyineptitude - you are wrong.

If I am wrong, the link from TV Licensing is also "wrong".

I guess I'll just concede the argument because others say I'm an "armchair lawyer".

Please don't complain on here when you receive a court summons.

EdSwippet

Thanks for the comments so far. It looks like the choice is going to be between Netflix and Amazon, then, and depend on content.

From a cursory glance it's hard to see which fits the bill best, though. Both offer a large selection of films which probably doesn't refresh that often, so after the 'honeymoon' period this might lose some appeal. The box sets are decent, but may have some of the same issue. And documentaries appear light on both.

I'm certainly happy to switch from series to films -- plenty of comedy there -- but I should admit to a preference for British and European dramas (and films, for that matter) over US ones. Much content on both Netflix and Amazon appears to be US sourced, probably to be expected given that these are large US companies. Amazon apparently gets Dr Who, though, albeit some months late. So it seems I need to investigate both to see which has the best fit. Time to consider the free-month trial on them.

As for the full-on TV license, I have to agree that BBC content definitely fits my current habits and quality criteria. However, for someone with only iPlayer catch-up it is more than twice the cost of Amazon/Netflix yet with an apparently comparatively minuscule selection of relevant content (I have never watched a single episode of Bake Off, Strictly, EastEnders, The Voice, etc, etc, and never will!). I don't think I can justify that cost differential for just Dr Who, Wolf Hall, Car Share, and the odd Brian Cox or Jim Al-khalili ponder on physics.

I could of course make better use of a TV license if I also go out and buy a TV and HDD recorder -- Film4, for example, if nothing else. But all that just adds to the expense, and uses up a chunk of the house. And worse, will lead to me watching more TV; at the moment the low channel count is a 'benefit' in that it ensures I also have a real life. :-)

[Deleted User]

Personally, I don't think either Netflix or Amazon offer enough content on their own. Both these services are fine as a enhancement of choice when used in conjunction with Freeview etc, otherwise they are very poor indeed. I accept that they are very cheap, however.

almillar

If I am wrong, the link from TV Licensing is also "wrong".
I guess I'll just concede the argument because others say I'm an "armchair lawyer".
Please don't complain on here when you receive a court summons.

The TVL link may well be wrong - it's not the law, and it's written by people who WANT you to pay. I'm no armchair lawyer, and I happily pay my TVL.
I think it's a bad idea to NOT pay and have an aerial, dish, cables visible, but there are still legitimate reasons why that may be so like using Freeview for radio, for example.

EdSwippet

almillar wrote: »

... have an aerial, dish, cables visible...

For what it's worth, I have all of that and more on the outside of my house, courtesy of my home's previous occupier. It's just that there is nothing whatsoever connected to them on the inside of the house. :-)

EdSwippet

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Personally, I don't think either Netflix or Amazon offer enough content on their own. Both these services are fine as a enhancement of choice when used in conjunction with Freeview etc, otherwise they are very poor indeed. I accept that they are very cheap, however.

Understood. However, I don't have Freeview etc, only iPlayer catch-up. So what counts for me is how Netflix and Amazon stack up against that one single and somewhat limited viewing option. Moreover, one that comes in at twice the price of the other two, starting in September.

VisionMan

You could of course swap between the two. As they're both only month to month contracts.

[Deleted User]

Netflix has the benefit of allowing 'per month' subscriptions. You don't need to sign up for a whole year.

I pay for both - and actually find some of the best content is that produced by Netflix or Amazon themselves. Technically, Amazon is very good since you can download to a portable device, while you can't (yet) with Netflix.

You may also need to be choose depending on the device you want to watch this on. Amazon video can require a Fire TV/Stick to watch it on a big screen.

If I had to choose, I'd keep Amazon over Netflix - but mainly because I get a bunch of other services for my £79 a year - I get their music service and free deliveries, which I use quite a lot. BUT.. it does try to make you spend a bit of extra money on all the videos that aren't free. At least with Netflix, what you see is what you get.