Charging for iPlayer

In article , dave
wrote:
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.

By chance I watched BBC Parliament whilst I had a cup of tea a while ago,
and they were carring live a session where the relevant minister was
dealing with the BBC.

If I followed correctly: One comment he made was to the effect that he
agreed that the arrangements needing changing so that 'listen again' *also*
needed a license. I didn't note his wording in detail, so there may be some
'gotcha' involved for the BBC, or I misunderstood. But it did seem as if
the government will deal with this specific issue.

The comment was just after 4pm I think. So use of 'listen again' may find
what he said and we can check the wording. :-)

Just shows that it makes sense to have a tea break!

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

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:43:46 +0100, "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?

I believe so, and it's also still the case that if you watch
television by some method that does require a licence, it doesn't
matter whether the programmes you're watching are provided by the BBC
or by somebody else. It doesn't matter if you never watch a BBC
programme, you have to pay the BBC, otherwise you're a criminal.

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'd have assumed that if you're required to pay for something, then
you should pay for what you get, and you should pay the people you get
it from, or at least the money should eventually find its way to them.
I can't offhand think of any counterexamples.

The whole system is an utter mess, so it's little wonder that many
people have no respect for it. It's as if the people in charge haven't
been paying attention and still think it's the 1940s. If any changes
are made, they'll have to be pretty drastic ones or it will be
difficult to justify the result in terms of anything resembling logic.

Rod.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:18:10 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

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.

What's it got to do with households? People use services, not houses.
Charge the people. Same for the roads and other services.

Pinnerite wrote:

if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach

Sod that!

I just want a fixed annual fee that allows me to watch/listen to BBC
programmes, either on air, or over the net, not pay per view.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:30:26 +0100, Pinnerite
wrote:

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?

It is not clear from any of the replies whether holders of UK
Television licences would be required to pay. It seems unreasonable
to have to pay for the same thing twice and there seems to be no
appetite to change BBC television to a subscription model.

If you just gave all licence holders a code - or allowed them to use
the licence number - how would you prevent fraud?

On 06/07/2015 18:43, Andy Burns wrote:
Pinnerite wrote:

if it is handled, for example like iTunes,
a sort of 99p per programme approach

Sod that!

I just want a fixed annual fee that allows me to watch/listen to BBC
programmes, either on air, or over the net, not pay per view.


Something like an annual licence fee perhaps?

Anyway, that's all buggered now, the moaners and whingers have won. It was
announced this evening that the BBC are now looking into ways to charge for
the catch up services. That will also presumably apply to Channel 4 - ITV
already have theirs covered by the advertising - so I expect we'll ALL end up
paying more. After all, someone has to pay the costs of change and administration.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:30:26 +0100, Pinnerite
wrote:

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?

It is not clear from any of the replies whether holders of UK
Television licences would be required to pay. It seems unreasonable
to have to pay for the same thing twice and there seems to be no
appetite to change BBC television to a subscription model.

If you just gave all licence holders a code - or allowed them to use
the licence number - how would you prevent fraud?

How do Netflix prevent fraud?

On 06/07/2015 22:43, Yellow wrote:
In article ,
says...

If you just gave all licence holders a code - or allowed them to use
the licence number - how would you prevent fraud?

How do Netflix prevent fraud?


They limit the number of concurrent logins to whatever the subscription
is for.

My son has a sub for 6 concurrent users and a few months ago found he
couldn't log on. It transpired that a young family member had given the
password to someone else, who had given the password to someone else, etc.

He simply changed the main password and they were all blocked. I don't
suppose Netflix actually mind who exactly are watching, they have taken
the money anyway.

--

Chris

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:02:19 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

It was
announced this evening that the BBC are now looking into ways to charge for
the catch up services. That will also presumably apply to Channel 4 - ITV
already have theirs covered by the advertising - so I expect we'll ALL end up
paying more.

Paying more or watching less. If they demand more money for what I've
already got, I'll have to consider how badly I want it, and whether
it's worth paying for. I hope that at least we have that amount of
choice, i.e. not pay for programmes we don't want and watch something
else instead, which at the moment is not an option.

Rod.

David Kennedy wrote:

Something like an annual licence fee perhaps?

Yes, I just want the current scheme to cover all equipment.