BBC iPlayer loophole to be closed and also ad blockers to be looked at

I can see the BBC iD playing a part in this, and presumably some sort of TV Licensing portal that can activate those accounts for online streaming. Maybe cross-referencing the TV License address against a card billing address.

And then extending the integration to other broadcasters if they wanted to take part. Technically it's not a huge issue to solve - see the number of on-demand services in the US that rely on having the channels as part of the cable subscription, they all manage to validate the entitlement in some way.
 
[TW]Fox;29238022 said:
I find adverts annoying too and I use an AdBlocker but it's a tricky one isn't it. Exactly who should pay for the content you watch on 4OD?
Click to expand...

Let's face it, if you record the programme instead of watching it live (like most of us do these days) then you skip all the ads anyhow.

And then there's the people like me who've never, ever clicked on a single advert in their lives, and don't intend to in future.

They aren't missing any revenue in my case, since you normally get paid for clicks not simply running the ad, AFAIK.
 
I wish there was a way I could just pay for Sky TV and have the BBC rubbish cut out of the programme guide. No problem paying for Sky content, but I no longer want to support the BBC.
 
I knew it was only a matter of time before they began trying to outlaw adblocking, making false parallels to piracy.

I'll stop blocking ads when they can assure safety from ads that inject malicious malware.
 
If Iplayer does something to stop people easily accessing their content people will just use easier, free (illegal) means.
 
I begrudgingly pay the fee. I'm annoyed to see money spend on an Eastenders set revamp. But my wife approves, so it's to keep her happy. I'm sure I could live without it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/

I too watch recorded Sky content and forward the adverts. Watching anything in realtime just gets me annoyed.

I had tried to avoid using an adblocker for the advertiser's 'sake', but when a video happily plays on a webpage, sound and all; that's what I don't like.

I installed Sky Go on my mobile. Started watching a program and then had 2 minutes of adverts scoffing my mobile data before the program started.

If this goes ahead, the BBC will have to let things carry on as they and be even more 'heavy handed' when it comes to their licence fee adverts.
 
The BBC think they're some powerful force when after the last 25-30 years of scandal I certainly don't have respect for their "authority" anymore.

John Whittingdale is just as much a jobs worth and is just jumping on the bandwagon for the extra £££s for his sector.

Just **** off and leave the commercial stations to it, you're becoming a hypocritical, overbearing and nagging pain in the ass to the whole nation.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
[TW]Fox said:
I find adverts annoying too and I use an AdBlocker but it's a tricky one isn't it. Exactly who should pay for the content you watch on 4OD?
Click to expand...
Let's face it, if you record the programme instead of watching it live (like most of us do these days) then you skip all the ads anyhow.

And then there's the people like me who've never, ever clicked on a single advert in their lives, and don't intend to in future.

They aren't missing any revenue in my case, since you normally get paid for clicks not simply running the ad, AFAIK.
Click to expand...

But who should pay for it?

If the BBC are producing content which you watch for free when you should be paying then it's lost revenue. I completely understand why some people dont want to pay the licence fee, but what i don't understand is why some people think they should get the content for free just because they don't watch it live. iPlayer is supposed to be an online service for people who pay the licence fee, it's not there for free loaders to abuse.
 
Last edited:
I've been saying for about 10 years that the plan the BBC has laid out *all along* is to force the .gov to introduce a broadband tax. That's why they made iplayer in the first place, to 'hook' people into it.

Plan is:
1) make iplayer, and everything available online (done)
2) claim people stop paying licence fee due to iplayer (done)
3) convince the gov that the licence fee must 'evolve' to encompass iplayer (done)
4) make some noise about 'tv licence id login' (in progress)
5) claim it's impossible to do it properly given the IT infrastructure needed (realtime link between licence dept and BBC, huge database etc)
6) claim it'd be easier to just take the licence fee at the source with internet providers.

I've seen that plan AGES ago, and they very carefully move the pieces on the board
 
james.miller said:
If they are producing content which you watch for free then it's lost revenue. I completely understand why some people dont want to pay the licence fee. What i don't understand is why some people think they should get the content for free just because they don't watch it live.
Click to expand...

To be fair, since the BBC is state owned, it's content is owned by *you* and everyone else. They might want to have a tax on live streaming and stuff -- fair enough -- but ultimately the content, down to their building and chairs is owned by the state, and technically by *you* already.

So having an archive of BBC content online is only to be expected, pretty much as you'd expect a national library and such. And that without a licence fee.
 
FoxEye said:
And then there's the people like me who've never, ever clicked on a single advert in their lives, and don't intend to in future.

They aren't missing any revenue in my case, since you normally get paid for clicks not simply running the ad, AFAIK.
Click to expand...


95% of digital media is bought on a CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) basis, not a CPC (click) basis. Unfortunately it's idiots like you with very limited knowledge about the subject who continue to spread misinformation about stuff like this, adding to the problem.

I say this in every adblocking thread but the same responses always pop up in the next one.

Take note:

The internet is not free.

You pay for content through advertising.

Some guy earlier in this thread said he should be able to choose whether he is subjected to adverts or not. LOL? There is a choice, either use the website or not? I like beer, but I don't complain when people ask me to pay for it when I go to the pub. You don't choose whether you pay for your petrol, or your Torygraph, or your meal-deal, or your electricity do you? Why is it then acceptable for you to choose whether you pay for the hundreds of hours of digital content you soak up each month?

Are people on this forum really so stupid that they don't consider what happens behind the scenes? How the hell do you think content on Techradar is produced? By people sat in their bedrooms just for fun? You think the hosting companies provide their services for free? Maybe Future publishing (who owns Techradar) should choose whether to pay for hosting or not. It's only fair right?

As to the point about being happy to pay for your content on a subscription or micro transaction model, thats just nonsense and it's already apparent from the small sample of websites which have pursued this option that it doesn't work. When the audience is posed with the option of disabling adblocker or paying money for the content, they disable adblocker or leave the website.

Two things need to happen in order to sort out the adblocking mess. Firstly you guys need to educate yourself on some really basic stuff and stop telling people your ill thought through opinions on things. It's a growing problem for publishers and the higher the uptake, the more websites will block content from being viewed with an adblocker, so keep it to yourselves. Secondly, the advertising industry needs to stop pushing intrusive, rich-media ads and improve cross device re-targeting capabilities so that only relevant banners are shown.
 
The 'industry' *created* their own adblock problem by not being sensible about what to show to their users.

It's not the users fault, you can't /blame them for using adblock/ -- it's entirely the industry who made their website so stupidly slow and blinking that you need to take preventive measures to protect yourself against what should be considered malware practices.
That and the *actual* malware that adverts have been delivering over the years.

Stop being all 'oh noes poor writers will die' -- if that industry is not viable, let it die. If that industry is only viable by delivering malware to users. let it die.
 
Osprey said:
95% of digital media is bought on a CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) basis, not a CPC (click) basis... snip
Click to expand...


Crux of it is a lot have people have no business sense. But then, a lot of business has no user sense. (and then some do, too much, utilising it in such a was as forcing / pushing the users etc)

It's just a big mess which will take longer to fix and probably impact negatively on the user as businesses learn more and then learn how to manipulate/whatever advertising revenue.
 
Osprey said:
95% of digital media is bought on a CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) basis, not a CPC (click) basis. Unfortunately it's idiots like you with very limited knowledge about the subject who continue to spread misinformation about stuff like this, adding to the problem.

I say this in every adblocking thread but the same responses always pop up in the next one.

Take note:

The internet is not free.

You pay for content through advertising.
Click to expand...

The industry created the problem for themselves, back in the early 2000's. Ad's wasn't a problem, I would happily browse a websites with minimal ad's, small banner at the top, small ad in the corner, no ad block was needed.

Until websites starting throwing massive ad's taking up the whole screen before you can read an article or a clip blasting out randomly after a few seconds browsing a website. THERE IS NO NEED FOR FOR IT! What was wrong with the model they had years ago?!?!!? Now cyber criminals know how to hi-jack ad's with malware and infect peoples computers.

Ad-blockers are not going away any time soon and I will continue to use them. If they cant find better and more appropriate ways to make money then tough! They had their chance and abused it.
 
I only watch TV live when its shows that i enjoy. Such as Death in paradise or Doctor Who.

The rest is on series record on the Youview box to be watched at a later date or hours after it recorded
 
YouTube does my head in most actually. Having chromecast and every now and again an ad pops up means I have to grab my phone to skip
It's louder and very intrusive

May end up being too find the cheapest non ad subscription. Which I'm sure Google are doing /done

So clever
Get to critical mass for free
Add ads
Then offer a paywall to go back to free

As for BBC.
I have no license and watch iplayer
I will not be paying to watch iplayer

As for advert enforcing sites (ad block doesn't work) I will usually just not go there
There are very few sites I visit not
Mobile browsing is usually better than pc as you can't squash the sides of screen but pop ups are more and more regular

Usually I find littered sites when I'm browsing random sites
Ie I'd never make an ad ridden ad blocker avoiding site a regular site

If many sites enforce ad blocker aversion tactics and employ more aggressive adverts I think they will just die

A small banner and ads on the right (non moving) is fine
I don't care about piles. Of them at bottom
But I don't want animated and especially not sound
Unfortunately it's too much effort to whitelist good sites. So everyone suffers
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom