TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

Cornucopia has mentioned several times that if you're watching something less than 2 hours after it aired (I'm sure that's the figure mentioned) TVL still consider it to be 'live', and as such you need a licence.

Cornucopia

Yes.... it's a bit more subtle than that.

TVL consider 2 hours to be the cut-off point for "live broadcast". However, they don't make the Law. The "watch from start" stream does not technically fulfil the requirements of the legislation to require a Licence, AFAICS, however anyone taking advantage of this may find TVL challenging it.

thelawnet

The culture secretary wants to force people (by threat of law/imprisonment) to buy a tv licence to watch iplayer.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

He also said people should have to look at ads on the internet, and not use ad blockers.

cw18

Interesting quote

"And while the definition of television in the legislation covers live streaming, it does not require viewers to have a licence if they watch BBC programmes through the iPlayer even if it is just a few minutes after transmission."



Personally doesn't bother me, as I don't use catch-up either. I'm a pure DVD viewer (OK, and VCR - I still have some of those and a player that works)

DavidP24

thelawnet wrote: »

The culture secretary wants to force people (by threat of law/imprisonment) to buy a tv licence to watch iplayer.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35708623

He also said people should have to look at ads on the internet, and not use ad blockers.

I seriously do not think John Whittingdale (Culture Secretary) has thought this through or he is receiving REALLY BAD ADVICE.

If it were just about fairness in principle, I would have no problem with extending the TV Licence to catchup services on freeview boxes or TV's with catchup, but a little lateral thinking will show that there is a better way.

The BBC licence model has had its day, I used to be a passionate supporter of the BBC but with the disgusting behaviour we have seen on these forums and on youtube by Capita TVL I voted with my feet. I got rid of my TV and other equipment capable of broadcasting BBC programmes either live or on catchup.

I do not use iPlayer, but it is madness to think that citizens all over the world can watch BBC programmes on Iplayer simply by using a proxy but UK Citizens will be harassed by Capita.

Sky, Netflix and a plethora of others have demonstrated the viability of paid subscription services and this is the direction where the BBC needs to go, content can be encrypted and by doing so we would not be serving up free tv to billions in India, Pakistan, the USA and many many other countries.

We would also prevent the illegal copying of BBC TV programming.

So how would this work?

First off you would decide what parts of the BBC were "community" services, things like BBC Radio, BBC News, Documentaries and perhaps children’s TV, then you would move those into a new BBC Community Corporation. The rest of it would be moved to BBC Commercial Services, they would offer their programmes on subscription via the existing devices, even boxes such as freeview have the capability for an encryption card and paid TV.

BBC Iplayer can also be encrypted and that is the more rational solution to the Iplayer option.

Selected BBC TV Channcels could be bundled into existing offerings by Sky, Virgin, BT, TalkTalk et al for a fee of course.

This would enable the TV Licence to be scrapped, it would lay the path for the BBC to pay its own way, it would be the end of stupid decisions like a head office that costs a billion pounds and then gets a fortune spend on it 18m later because the carpet is not creative enough.

Of course it would make the BBC think twice about other wasted expenditure such as the caravan where they allowed jimmy savile to abuse hundreds of children.

In the scenario of subscription BBC, The BBC Community Services would be paid for by a levy on the other TV broadcasters based on their market share, but may not be passed on to the consumer. They would benefit by having less competition.

The idea that Iplayer would require a licence is complete madness because it is not enforceable, think about it, how would it work, would the Government use the RIPA act to spy on IP addresses accessing BBC Servers? Would they have the Capita Goons kick down our doors and search our laptops, would it be an offence to not give Capita your password? The FBI has not had much luck with Apple trying to break into a dead terrorists Iphone, do they really think they can enforce this?

It is clear that the Government has an agenda of wanting us to hate the BBC as they do the NHS, is this part of that plan, so they can break it up and stop BBC News?

Another flaw in the extension of the TV Licence to catchup devices is the freedom of people to receive alternative TV such as Netflix who do NOT want BBC services but the device has a BBC iPlayer built in.

People should be free to have CHOICE and not be penalised simply because a device has a BBC iPlayer client that they did not install and cannot remove (the manufacturer of the device installs it with others) an example would be Amazon Firesticks, Sky NowTV which are subscription services that carry free channels as well as subscription channels such as Netflix. Some DVD and Bluray players even include BBC Clients.

Failing to respect this is effectively a tax on BBC alternatives such as Amazon, Sky Now TV.

How would THIS be enforced, will Capita assume you are guilty because you own a device?

As a stepping stone to the BBC subscription service, surely the LOGICAL way to make this work would be to put a LOGIN and PASSWORD in Iplayer, users can enter their TV Licence number into their BBC iPlayer account. That would immediately prepare the way for the subscription services.

I would urge John Whittingdale to use words like "considering" when making such daft statements, so you give yourself to make appropriate law.

cw18

I'd much prefer to see it as a subscription service.

DavidP24 wrote: »

even boxes such as freeview have the capability for an encryption card and paid TV.

What percentage do? I've had 4 or 5 boxes over the years (before I canned my licence), and not a single one did. These days you don't even need a box as it's built into TVs, and my TV doesn't have a slot for a card so I guess I'd need to buy a box as the Freeview in it wouldn't work anymore (if I decided I wanted to watch TV again)

Cornucopia

The question is what proportion of households have the necessary equipment to continue to watch BBC services under a subscription model.

That would be everyone who can access the BBC via the Internet, everyone who has a Freeview TV with a CAM slot (which I understand is most of them), everyone with a Smart TV, and everyone with a smart device connected to their TV, including Youview, Sky, VM, Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV, Now TV, etc. etc.

I could imagine that figure being 80%+ of households. I think that's a borderline figure at which an alternative (possibly short-term) solution might be required. That could either be provision of the necessary technology, a short-term extension of the Licence, and/or an ad-funded BBC1 available over platforms that don't support subscription/encryption.

I don't think it's rocket science, and I would urge John Whittingdale to be brave and grasp this nettle to resolve the huge anachronism of the TV Licence and TV Licensing.

In a World where a Now TV box costs £15, I don't really see this as a realistic barrier to sorting things out properly for the future.

System

If the TV licence is scrapped, who pays for BBC radio, BBC's portion of the bill for S4C, BBC World service etc

People seem to forget that the TV licence also funds radio services, payments to Arqiva (mainly) for the upkeep of the distribution infrastructure (masts etc) and other non-TV areas of their business

Cornucopia

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


The Telegraph is reporting that the changes to the Licence have been finalised, and the result is that use of iPlayer will come under the Licence, but other catch-up services will not.

This, for me, is absolute common sense.

Cornucopia

!!!!!! wrote: »

If the TV licence is scrapped, who pays for BBC radio, BBC's portion of the bill for S4C, BBC World service etc

People seem to forget that the TV licence also funds radio services, payments to Arqiva (mainly) for the upkeep of the distribution infrastructure (masts etc) and other non-TV areas of their business

All these things are just about money, though. Where is the pressing social need for the State to regulate the watching of TV?