BBC to charge for iPlayer
Discussion
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. 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?The problem with the BBC is that Murdoch wants it killed as he wants people to have to pay for Sky TV. ...
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...
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?The problem with the BBC is that Murdoch wants it killed as he wants people to have to pay for Sky TV. ...
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...
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.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...
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 advertsDifference 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
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?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
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.
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"
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"
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?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
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.
Just a tax on anything connected to the internet that can display a moving image
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.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.
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?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
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.
Just a tax on anything connected to the internet that can display a moving image
So, not only will people be paying for the BBC, they'll also be paying for rural locations to get better broadband...
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).
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.
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?The problem with the BBC is that Murdoch wants it killed as he wants people to have to pay for Sky TV. ...
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...
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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff