BBC to charge for iPlayer

Author
Discussion

cold thursday

341 posts

127 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
I think people have misinterpreted this - it isn't "you will need a licence for iPlayer", it is "you will need a TV licence for catch up TV". It looks very much like the licence is being extended to streaming services.
Yes !!! I heard it includes the ITV player, How does that work ? surely they are not going to share the revenue.

Murph7355

37,648 posts

255 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
...

The problem with the BBC is that Murdoch wants it killed as he wants people to have to pay for Sky TV. ...
Why would the former lead to the latter definitively?

Perhaps I lead too sheltered a life, but I wasn't aware that taxes were being used to fund licenses. Should never have been allowed in the first place and with our finances in the mess they're in, this is one of those low hanging fruit items that should have been the first cut.

I wonder how many more of these things are out there...

greygoose

8,224 posts

194 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Derek Smith said:
...

The problem with the BBC is that Murdoch wants it killed as he wants people to have to pay for Sky TV. ...
Why would the former lead to the latter definitively?

Perhaps I lead too sheltered a life, but I wasn't aware that taxes were being used to fund licenses. Should never have been allowed in the first place and with our finances in the mess they're in, this is one of those low hanging fruit items that should have been the first cut.

I wonder how many more of these things are out there...
Lots, free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, politicians love buying votes from pensioners no matter how much income they have.

jmorgan

36,010 posts

283 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Why would the former lead to the latter definitively?

Perhaps I lead too sheltered a life, but I wasn't aware that taxes were being used to fund licenses. Should never have been allowed in the first place and with our finances in the mess they're in, this is one of those low hanging fruit items that should have been the first cut.

I wonder how many more of these things are out there...
I think it is a good idea for those in retirement that cannot afford it. Problem is I suppose is there are many than can. That bit needs to be weeded out but that is always a contentious subject and many tory voters are there.

McTory

70 posts

106 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
cold thursday said:
Yes !!! I heard it includes the ITV player, How does that work ? surely they are not going to share the revenue.
Difference between iplayer and ITV catch-up = one carries adverts


Difference between ITV catch-up and youtube is?


I'd put money on it that it will mean if you can see video on it then you have to pay a license fee for it

Randy Winkman

16,014 posts

188 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As a "pro-BBC" type I can see a shortcoming if loads of people just watch BBC on "catch-up" and subsequently don't actually contribute towards any of the programmes being made.

Cheese Mechanic

Original Poster:

3,157 posts

168 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
McTory said:
Difference between iplayer and ITV catch-up = one carries adverts
Difference between ITV catch-up and youtube is?
I'd put money on it that it will mean if you can see video on it then you have to pay a license fee for it
I smell an excuse for an internet tax. The bds have tried it before , Brown's telphone line standing charge tax , what was it meant to be (initially), 50 p a quarter I think . Thankfully not implemented , wonder if they will have another go?

At a similar time, BBC lobbyists were campaaigning on linking internet and broadcast media , bring them under the same umbrella.

They will not have forgotten it, so suspect we will be stiffed one way or the other. Being forced by law to pay for a media company when you only use competitors services is a fking disgrace.

redtwin

7,518 posts

181 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
As long as all the services I am being charged to use receive a fair percentage (based on viewing figures perhaps?) of the license fee I am required to pay, then I am fine with it.

What sticks in my craw is one broadcaster getting ALL tax revenue for viewed content even if they haven't produced it. Smells of extortion to me.

"You pay me"...."but I haven't received anything from you"...."Don't care, pay me anyway or else"

McTory

70 posts

106 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
Cheese Mechanic said:
McTory said:
Difference between iplayer and ITV catch-up = one carries adverts
Difference between ITV catch-up and youtube is?
I'd put money on it that it will mean if you can see video on it then you have to pay a license fee for it
I smell an excuse for an internet tax. The bds have tried it before , Brown's telphone line standing charge tax , what was it meant to be (initially), 50 p a quarter I think . Thankfully not implemented , wonder if they will have another go?

At a similar time, BBC lobbyists were campaaigning on linking internet and broadcast media , bring them under the same umbrella.

They will not have forgotten it, so suspect we will be stiffed one way or the other. Being forced by law to pay for a media company when you only use competitors services is a fking disgrace.
I don't think they will go as far as an internet tax

Just a tax on anything connected to the internet that can display a moving image


jkh112

21,886 posts

157 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
redtwin said:
As long as all the services I am being charged to use receive a fair percentage (based on viewing figures perhaps?)
Please not based on viewing figures - it would be a rush to the lowest common denominator tv.

Funk

26,254 posts

208 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Funk said:
boxst said:
I don't watch live television at all, but do like some BBC programs so will watch them on iPlayer. I'm happy to pay the licence fee for this. I'm not happy that I have to pay the licence AND pay for iPlayer...
If you never watch live you should drop the licence fee completely.
Then how would the programmes get made?
Not my issue. At present the only requirement is to obey the law, which he would be.

I'd have no issue with iPlayer going subscription-only as I never watch anything on it anyway (as mentioned before I think, I only ever watched the odd TG and PMQs and even then somewhat infrequently).

Make people put a licence key in to play or make it PPV - no issues with either as it won't affect me in the slightest.

As long as I'm not subsidising that crap I don't much care. However, the law should be changed to allow people to watch non-BBC channels without having to pay the licence fee. In my mind it's the same as wanting to be in a union yet fundamentally disagreeing with the union giving your money to the Labour party automatically.

tangerine_sedge

4,699 posts

217 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
McTory said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
McTory said:
Difference between iplayer and ITV catch-up = one carries adverts
Difference between ITV catch-up and youtube is?
I'd put money on it that it will mean if you can see video on it then you have to pay a license fee for it
I smell an excuse for an internet tax. The bds have tried it before , Brown's telphone line standing charge tax , what was it meant to be (initially), 50 p a quarter I think . Thankfully not implemented , wonder if they will have another go?

At a similar time, BBC lobbyists were campaaigning on linking internet and broadcast media , bring them under the same umbrella.

They will not have forgotten it, so suspect we will be stiffed one way or the other. Being forced by law to pay for a media company when you only use competitors services is a fking disgrace.
I don't think they will go as far as an internet tax

Just a tax on anything connected to the internet that can display a moving image
I think it will just become a household tax to pay for 'media', like in Germany. It's one way to (a) fund the BBC, (b) plug the none-live-iplayer hole and (c) invest in telecoms infrastructure to low speed/coverage areas.

So, not only will people be paying for the BBC, they'll also be paying for rural locations to get better broadband...

Murph7355

37,648 posts

255 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
jmorgan said:
I think it is a good idea for those in retirement that cannot afford it. Problem is I suppose is there are many than can. That bit needs to be weeded out but that is always a contentious subject and many tory voters are there.
The taxpayer isn't there to provide entertainment to people, young or old.

Fuel and bus passes are a bit different though I would have thought there were arguments for different ways of paying these (or not).

Schmy

162 posts

105 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
The taxpayer isn't there to provide entertainment to people, young or old.
Yes we are.

From arts and culture to sports and the Olympics we pick up the bill for plenty of entertainment activities. The BBC isn't just about entertainment either. But I'm sure you already know that.

JensenA

5,671 posts

229 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
greygoose said:
Murph7355 said:
Derek Smith said:
...

The problem with the BBC is that Murdoch wants it killed as he wants people to have to pay for Sky TV. ...
Why would the former lead to the latter definitively?

Perhaps I lead too sheltered a life, but I wasn't aware that taxes were being used to fund licenses. Should never have been allowed in the first place and with our finances in the mess they're in, this is one of those low hanging fruit items that should have been the first cut.

I wonder how many more of these things are out there...
Lots, free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, politicians love buying votes from pensioners no matter how much income they have.
It's called Looking after those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Wednesday 8th July 2015
quotequote all
JensenA said:
It's called Looking after those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives.
Amongst others, of course.

chris watton

22,477 posts

259 months

Wednesday 8th July 2015
quotequote all
Schmy said:
The BBC isn't just about entertainment either. But I'm sure you already know that.
You got that right! That's why we hardly ever tune in to BBC, there are much better channels showing much better quality programmes to choose from!

Blaster72

10,772 posts

196 months

Wednesday 8th July 2015
quotequote all
McTory said:
t
Eric Mc said:
What about the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish (not to mention all those in the Republic of Ireland who watch BBC for nothing).
no true scot would watch the BBC after they oppressed our freedom
rofl I love PH sometimes, there really is some comedy gold on here.

zarjaz1991

3,470 posts

122 months

Wednesday 8th July 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The problem with "make it subscription only" is that many people who favour this model, also think the level would remain at £145 per year. It wouldn't, it would increase hugely.

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Wednesday 8th July 2015
quotequote all
zarjaz1991 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The problem with "make it subscription only" is that many people who favour this model, also think the level would remain at £145 per year. It wouldn't, it would increase hugely.
And that is the crux of the problem, the BBC is hugely inefficient, it can only exist if you force people to pay for things they do not want.