BBC to charge for iPlayer

[0000]

zarjaz1991 said:

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.

I doubt it.

With 1000 people a day choosing to no longer pay £145 per year to access not only BBC content but also any other broadcaster's content, plus the DWP no longer 4 million funding licences, they're already at breaking point - people won't pay any more for it given they can't sustain current rates. Charging hugely more to vastly less wouldn't help them stay afloat, they'd have to reduce the currently enormous offering to something people want at a price they're prepared to pay.

[audidoody]

[redacted]

[Moonhawk]

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 that is how I read it too.

[tangerine_sedge]

0000 said:

zarjaz1991 said:

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.

I doubt it.

With 1000 people a day choosing to no longer pay £145 per year to access not only BBC content but also any other broadcaster's content, plus the DWP no longer 4 million funding licences, they're already at breaking point - people won't pay any more for it given they can't sustain current rates. Charging hugely more to vastly less wouldn't help them stay afloat, they'd have to reduce the currently enormous offering to something people want at a price they're prepared to pay.

I doubt that they are at breaking point. They could kill off a few TV channels, make fewer dramas, cut radio output, kill online content, kill iplayer, have reduced operating hours, i.e. 16:00->00:00. There's plenty of things they could do to reduce costs, it would of course impact the services they provide, but they are miles away from breaking point and have plenty of options.

I think it's clear that something is going to change at the next BBC review, it's up to the politicians to decide what they want to happen to the BBC. Personally, I think it'll be a household tax, probably via local authority and tied to improved Broadband services.

[budgie smuggler]

chris watton said:

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!

Such as?

[Trif]

tangerine_sedge said:

Personally, I think it'll be a household tax, probably via local authority

I concur, it's the only way I can see it surviving (short of forcing all communication subscribers from paying it as it is).

[Moonhawk]

[redacted]

[chris watton]

budgie smuggler said:

chris watton said:

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!

Such as?

It is very subjective, isn't it?

From my point of view, the BBC no longer has anything to offer me, so even the £145 per year is too much. We do not watch a lot of TV, but when we do, it is usually quality programmes. These, for us, never seem to be BBC productions any longer.

Again, from my point of view, the BBC caters more for those in the public sector/unions, especially in news/current affairs. It got to the point where it seemed every programme had a left-leaning bias, very similar to The Guardian. As a private sector business owner, there is/was very little for me, but I fully understand why others may love it. For me, there are much better alternatives which I am happy to pay for.

TBH, I would be happy to continue to pay for the BBC (for me, it really is nothing, but for others, it is), but not in its current guise, not when it is nothing more than a propaganda arm for the left and the new religion of environmentalism - these two ideologies permeate into almost everything the BBC touches, and I simply couldn't stand to watch/listen to it any longer.

If you're into those things, though, I am sure you think it's great! But not for me. As I said, subjective.

[0000]

tangerine_sedge said:

I doubt that they are at breaking point. They could kill off a few TV channels, make fewer dramas, cut radio output, kill online content, kill iplayer, have reduced operating hours, i.e. 16:00->00:00. There's plenty of things they could do to reduce costs, it would of course impact the services they provide, but they are miles away from breaking point and have plenty of options.

I think it's clear that something is going to change at the next BBC review, it's up to the politicians to decide what they want to happen to the BBC. Personally, I think it'll be a household tax, probably via local authority and tied to improved Broadband services.

I meant in terms of being able to charge more.

[tangerine_sedge]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm truly interested, what is this better quality programming available from the other broadcasters?

[chrispmartha]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Apologies for hijacking the question but...

The Glastonbury coverage
Wimbledon coverage
dare I say it... Top Gear
The documantaries on BBC4 are of a very high quality
Rev.
Episodes
Have I got news for you
Qi

Now everything subjective but those are just some of the recent TV stuff that has IMO been great on the BBC.

[BJG1]

markcoznottz said:

Didn't they try to digitise it and then give up? No doubt cost us a fortune in common purpose art grad types with made up jobs....

A lot of TV was shot on video tape back in the day so won't look that good now. More importantly, stuff like OFAH etc is available for peanuts on Amazon, it's debatable how many people would pay for old stuff.

There's a hell of a lot of stuff that isn't available on DVD or iPlayer, a lot of cook shows filmed in the last 10 years, for example. A good start would be anything already digital being put up for subscription. Appreciate they wasted huge money on the digital project but I refuse to believe that can't be done in a cost efficient manner.

[V8forweekends]

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.

Good luck to Crapita trying to enforce that for kids watching youtube on their phones/ipads.

I've (legally) opted out of the TVL because I am not happy at the way they are spending the cash they receive. This is TV and radio, not schools as hospitals as others have pointed out. I won't be willingly paying a fee that goes to the BBC in order for me to watch stuff on youtube and netflix. The BBC has abandoned me, by chucking money about in a sickening way, by making hardly anything I am interested in and by being a complacent and arrogant organisation.

Incidentally I've never subscribed to Sky either as it's such awful value IMHO.

[BJG1]

markcoznottz said:

Didn't they try to digitise it and then give up? No doubt cost us a fortune in common purpose art grad types with made up jobs....

A lot of TV was shot on video tape back in the day so won't look that good now. More importantly, stuff like OFAH etc is available for peanuts on Amazon, it's debatable how many people would pay for old stuff.

There's a hell of a lot of stuff that isn't available on DVD or iPlayer, a lot of cook shows filmed in the last 10 years, for example. A good start would be anything already digital being put up for subscription. Appreciate they wasted huge money on the digital project but I refuse to believe that can't be done in a cost efficient manner.

[chris watton]

tangerine_sedge said:

I'm truly interested, what is this better quality programming available from the other broadcasters?

Again subjective, but for me, and purely from the top of my head:

Game of Thrones
True Detective
Breaking Bad
Vikings
Walking Dead
Spartacus
Big Bang Theory
Dexter
Penny Dreadful
Black Sails
Mad Men

For car enthusiasts (UK programmes):
Wheeler Dealers
Car SOS
5th Gear

For documentary lovers:
Too many to mention (although I confess that I have quite a few BBC box sets, the best being Earth Story from the late '90's, just before the BBC went all global warming on us

For News:
A choice of over a dozen channels to chose from - for crap like Fox News, that is subscribers only, so I choose not to pay for that.


And that's just from the top of my head.

[chrispmartha]

chris watton said:

Again subjective, but for me, and purely from the top of my head:

Game of Thrones
True Detective
Breaking Bad
Vikings
Walking Dead
Spartacus
Big Bang Theory
Dexter
Penny Dreadful
Black Sails
Mad Men

Not surprised you don't like the BBC not one British show in there?.

And of course that's fine as we all like different things, I personally can't see why people can invest so much time watching that many episodes of one TV show.

Fawlty towers got it right for me (another great BBC show) 12 episodes and job done ;-)

Oh and when did this seasons thing start, I'm British.It's series. Small rant over

[0000]

chrispmartha said:

chris watton said:

Again subjective, but for me, and purely from the top of my head:

Game of Thrones
True Detective
Breaking Bad
Vikings
Walking Dead
Spartacus
Big Bang Theory
Dexter
Penny Dreadful
Black Sails
Mad Men

Not surprised you don't like the BBC not one British show in there?.

What's a British show?

There's an awful lot of British people involved in at least a few of those.

[chrispmartha]

0000 said:

What's a British show?

There's an awful lot of British people involved in at least a few of those.

I would probably say a show that has been made by a British Tv company set in Britain for a British audience.

I appreciate that makes me sound a little jingoistic and I'm anything but.

[otolith]

0000 said:

What's a British show?

There's an awful lot of British people involved in at least a few of those.

The only thing I'm watching on the BBC at the moment is a subtitled Belgian drama they have bought in...

[0000]

chrispmartha said:

I would probably say a show that has been made by a British Tv company set in Britain for a British audience.

I appreciate that makes me sound a little jingoistic and I'm anything but.

I think the unique way the BBC is funded has trounced all over that niche.