Charging for iPlayer

This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my
take on the issue.

If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay?
If not, how would the system know?
Answer, a bureaucratic expense.

If one pays but is abroad should one pay?
In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes.
This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK
users. No more VPN schemes.

Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers.

Other ideas?

Alan

--
Mageia 4 for x86_64, Kernel:3.19.8-desktop-3.mga5
KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition.

"Pinnerite" wrote in message
...
This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my
take on the issue.

If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay?
If not, how would the system know?
Answer, a bureaucratic expense.

If one pays but is abroad should one pay?
In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes.
This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK
users. No more VPN schemes.

Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers.

Other ideas?

Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up
sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available
after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a
licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted?

How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd have
assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the UK,
irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a few
days later on a catch-up site.

What about the blind user who gets a reduced price, but, and here is where
some money might be made, if this blind person lives with sighted people, at
the moment all can view for the reduced cost.

Maybe a personal licence fee is needed here, so that everyone contributes a
little, the more adults in the house the more they pay?
Hides under sideboard.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Pinnerite" wrote in message
...
This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my
take on the issue.

If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay?
If not, how would the system know?
Answer, a bureaucratic expense.

If one pays but is abroad should one pay?
In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes.
This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK
users. No more VPN schemes.

Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers.

Other ideas?

Alan

--
Mageia 4 for x86_64, Kernel:3.19.8-desktop-3.mga5
KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition.

In article , says...

This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my
take on the issue.

If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay?
If not, how would the system know?
Answer, a bureaucratic expense.

If one pays but is abroad should one pay?
In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes.
This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK
users. No more VPN schemes.

Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers.

Other ideas?

Alan

I would guess it would work exactly the same way as Netflix or Amazon
Instants works - I log in and either pay by subscription or per show.

Having a TV Licence is exactly the same as paying the Amazon or Netflix
subscription fee (except it is quite a bit more money!) so I would not
expect to be asked to pay again.

So the "technology" already exists, it just needs to be put in place and
the law altered to allow it.

And the sooner the better in my view as it is time the free loaders who
claim to only ever use catch up services to watch TV contribute towards
the cost of providing that content.

I would also like to see catch up radio services being available only to
Licence payers, by subscription or by payment per show.

In article , NY
wrote:
Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on
catch-up sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is
only available after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite,
but one needs a licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is
being transmitted?

Yes. Although the site may have been able to stream it 'live'. What
apparently matters is that you *don't* watch it live.

How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd
have assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme
in the UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being
broadcast or a few days later on a catch-up site.

I guess the disparity arises for the usual reason. The way lawyers and
politicians write laws that have all kinds of loopholes. Mix of
carelessness, human error, and an eye to a future moneymaker. :-)

In practice I guess the assumption in the past was that to watch something
'later' you had to record it 'live' in the first place. So needed a license
in practice anyway. Now you don't.

So far as I know, legally, the BBC could say "We've decided you can only
watch/listen to iplayer on demand if you have a license because we have
arranged it that way". Purely on the basis that it suits the BBC. No-one
has a 'right' to view the iplayer.

The snag is just *how* they would/will so arrange it, and how they'd then
actually enforce dealing with anyone who watched/listened without a license
and stop them. Just asking people politely not to may not be very
effective.

Personally I think those who watch iplayer *should* get a license simply as
a matter of fairness, and with an eye to ensuring that it continues to be
available, and worth watching. But of course many people will dodge
payments if they can.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
says...

"Pinnerite" wrote in message
...
This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my
take on the issue.

If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay?
If not, how would the system know?
Answer, a bureaucratic expense.

If one pays but is abroad should one pay?
In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes.
This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK
users. No more VPN schemes.

Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers.

Other ideas?

Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up
sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available
after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a
licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted?

Yes, that is pretty much the situation as the law stands.

How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed?

First, the law has not kept up with the technology and second, there is
a lot of disagreement over exactly what the law should change to be.

So up to now, it has just been easier to leave it how it is.

I'd have
assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the UK,
irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a few
days later on a catch-up site.

No, that is incorrect.

In a sentence, if you watch or record when broadcast (any TV, not just
the BBC) you need a TV Licence.

Perhaps it needs to be done like an oyster card system, You can pay up front
for a year or pay as you go along, but of course the system needs to be
designed that can cope with this on line as well.
It seems that there is a problem here due to insufficient foresight on the
ways to watch tv.
Being the age i am I don't much care as long as radio is free.
Maybe that should be charged for as well. Can you imagine if every streamed
outlet was metered and payment is run up on a pay as you go system?
I'd hope that mightfocus some people to actually make programs worth
watching. Of course we now have bbc stuff on commercial channels like
really and drama, so perhaps it is time to go down the ch 4 route, which
should be considered, but the impartiality of programs preserved bty
statute, in other words the advertisers should have no input to the
programs, but only advertise if they want to. The problem than is, do you
have a body who says what you can and cannot make?
The whole thing is a bit of a dogs dinner and we have inherited a system
from a more innocent age.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Pinnerite" wrote in message
...
This proposal raises some interesting points. This is my
take on the issue.

If one pays for one's licence, should one be asked to pay?
If not, how would the system know?
Answer, a bureaucratic expense.

If one pays but is abroad should one pay?
In my opinion, if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach, the answer is yes.
This would enable the BBC to receive income from non-UK
users. No more VPN schemes.

Over 75s would be treated just like licence fee payers.

Other ideas?

Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on catch-up
sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is only available
after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but one needs a
licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being transmitted?

How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd have
assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme in the
UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being broadcast or a
few days later on a catch-up site.

In article ,
says...

What about the blind user who gets a reduced price, but, and here is where
some money might be made, if this blind person lives with sighted people, at
the moment all can view for the reduced cost.

The same is true if you have old folk in the household.


Maybe a personal licence fee is needed here, so that everyone contributes a
little, the more adults in the house the more they pay?
Hides under sideboard.
Brian

I live on my own so my Licence fee, per head, is more than for my
neighbours rather more crowded household but if you are all siting down
to watch the same show at the same time, does it matter?

Or if TV and Radio is only being consumed via the aerial, again does it
matter how many people are accessing it as the cost of providing it to
one person or to 100,000 people is the same?

So I suppose the conclusion I have just this second come to is that the
only additional cost to the BBC is when multiple users access different
BBC shows via the Internet, at the same time. So perhaps that should
only be allowed at an extra cost?

On 06/07/15 11:43, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that one can legally watch TV programmes on
catch-up sites such as iPlayer and ITV Player where the programme is
only available after it has been broadcast on terrestrial/satellite, but
one needs a licence to watch a programme on the same site as it is being
transmitted?

How did that disparity arise and why hasn't it ever been changed? I'd
have assumed that a licence was *always* required to watch a programme
in the UK, irrespective of whether it was watched as it was being
broadcast or a few days later on a catch-up site.

It's because the "Licence" is required under the 1949 Wireless
Telegraphy Act to install a television receiving station. The Act has
been stretched to cover situations where no 'wireless' is involved, such
as real-time iPlayer, but it really can't apply to downloading a file
from a BBC website.

Maybe eventually it will be decided to divorce the BBC subscription from
a law intended to stop pirate transmissions, but it would be very
difficult then to justify criminal sanctions against those who do not
comply.
--
Dave

In article , Yellow
wrote:
In article ,
says...


I live on my own so my Licence fee, per head, is more than for my
neighbours rather more crowded household but if you are all siting down
to watch the same show at the same time, does it matter?

The practical reality here would be akin to other areas.

The more complicated you make the assessment of 'how much to pay', the more
expensive you make the assessment and collection process. And the more
chances there will be for some to 'game' the system.

The advantage of a 'flat per household per year charge' is that it avoids
all the effort/expense/argument that otherwise would end up devoted to
trying to determine who watched what, when, where, etc.

The simplest approach is to treat it like roads, pavements, etc. Assume
everyone directly or indirectly makes use of them, so charge each household
the same amount regardless. Since you don't even need a TV these days, the
old idea of needing to establish there is one has become an irrelevance.

Personally, I'm happy with the idea that the old and crumbling should also
pay. However I also think they should get a decent pension to live on. So
making them pay seems OK to me *provided* the Government increase the
pension they get to balance it out. But no, I'm not holding my breath and
expecting that...

The real problem, of course, is that the current government aren't
interested in any of that. They are more interested in cutting and
undermining the BBC because it isn't tied to their own wishes and provides
an alternative to the wealth, power, influence, and control of its rich
mates. Hence they just need some pretty words to gloss what they will now
do. It doesn't matter to them if people can see though them because the
newspapers their mates run will support them. They apply The Golden Rule as
per the Wizard of Iz.

The Golden Rule: The man with the gold makes the rules.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html