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

I'm quite glad they are planning on closing this loophole, and adding a sign-in feature to iplayer will make this easier to police.

Why should free-loaders be able to watch stuff I pay for? I'm watching less and less from the BBC, but there are still the odd thing I watch, such as the news, Doctor Who and Death In Paradise.

And I have no issues with someone not paying a license fee, as long as they aren't watching the content they aren't paying for.

My only problem with the BBC is how biased to the left it is (when it should be neutral), especially that ***** that hosts Question Time. Fire him please!
 
95% of digital media is bought on a CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) basis, not a CPC (click) basis. Unfortunately it's ****** like you with very limited knowledge about the subject who continue to spread misinformation about stuff like this, adding to the problem.

Was that really necessary?

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.

Firstly I need to disable ad blocking /then/ the industry needs to sort out its ads? Hell, no.

My ad blocker is staying on /until/ the industry sorts out its ads.

1. Redirect ads. Fairly common. After x time I'm taken to an entirely different page to where I wanted to be. Often done by some random syndicated ad, that the website has no control over.

2. Ads that pop-up crap all over the screen when I move my mouse over the page. Absolutely unacceptable.

3. Ads that play video, with full sound. No thanks, lots of bandwidth used and for what? I'm not buying their crap. Often these are the result of (2) and take up 1/2 of the screen, or stop me from interacting with other parts of the page.

No, your "firstly" and "secondly" are not acceptable. Ad blocking will stay.
 
How is adblock comparable to a protection racket?

because some of the companies running adblockers ask websites to pay to be whitelisted so that there adds appear anyway, not quite the protection racket with the bats etc but pretty shoddy business practice.
 
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.

You don't own anything the BBC makes, you just use the services, hence the word license.
 
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.

We have a broadband tax already, its called landline rental fee £17 a month for the privelige of allowing them to keep our telephones connected to their exchanges. For every. Single. Household. I accept there has to be some maintenance fees but this is daylight robbery. Thats one fee I wouldn't mind being slashed. /rant

disclaimer: not everyone has access to Virgin/cable.
 
We have a broadband tax already, its called landline rental fee £17 a month for the privelige of allowing them to keep our telephones connected to their exchanges. For every. Single. Household. I accept there has to be some maintenance fees but this is daylight robbery. Thats one fee I wouldn't mind being slashed. /rant

disclaimer: not everyone has access to Virgin/cable.

I have never understood why people have a problem with this. Yes it would be nicer if the figures were all inclusive for an internet connection but it is hardly difficult to add up the cost of the elements required.... :confused:
 
because some of the companies running adblockers ask websites to pay to be whitelisted so that there adds appear anyway, not quite the protection racket with the bats etc but pretty shoddy business practice.

I'm cool with the adblockers and legit companies getting together, like adblock and its "allow unobtrusive advertising", its a good thing that i'm perfectly happy to enable, websites need to make money and if they do that in a way that doesnt offput their customers then surely thats a win win all round?
 
There's nothing stopping anyone from watching things live on iPlayer currently, even if it isn't technically allowed. If they were going to introduce licence checks why wouldn't they have already done it for live content?

They can't they are dictated to by the charter. So they can't implement any such thing, with out a change. Hence the secretary of state is going to change the law as soon as possible so BBC can implement such systems.
 
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.

License fee is a tax. Same as library are paid by tax. Just one tax you have a choice about, the other tax you just have to pay. They would save millions, free up the courts etc, just to take BBC out of the big old tax pot.
Even if there was a referendum to scrap BBC it would be an overwhelming vote to keep it.
 
because some of the companies running adblockers ask websites to pay to be whitelisted so that there adds appear anyway, not quite the protection racket with the bats etc but pretty shoddy business practice.

Never heard of tat.

I know ad block as a set of rules that if you make your adverts follow the user can xhoose to see them (ie not in the middle of test, not animated/pop ups that need closing)

But ive never hears of adblockers asking for money it would be suicide.

If my sd bloxker let ads through id change to a differnt ad bloxker
 
Never heard of tat.

I know ad block as a set of rules that if you make your adverts follow the user can xhoose to see them (ie not in the middle of test, not animated/pop ups that need closing)

But ive never hears of adblockers asking for money it would be suicide.

If my sd bloxker let ads through id change to a differnt ad bloxker

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2988...gns-on-to-eyeos-acceptable-ads-whitelist.html

The maker of a competing ad-blocking browser extension has joined up with the new program created by Eyeo, owner of Adblock Plus, under which an independent board will decide which ads are acceptable to be placed on a whitelist.

...

Eyeo has long maintained such a whitelist, but caused controversy by also accepting payment from some of the whitelisted companies.
 
The trouble is Ads are like that golden egg laying goose.

The industry has got greedy and ****ed consumers off. and is now paying the price for their own destruction.

Trouble is they do not get it, And the response to people now actively avoiding irritating adds is to inflict greater quantities of even more irritating ads on us!

Example. (And I am only selecting Star Trek because it is data I happen to have access to, but I suspect the same applies across the board)

Star Trek TOS (1960"s) typically ran for 50 minutes/episode, which for a 1 hour slot allowed for 10 minutes of ads.

That is reasonable.

Equivalent shows today (Gotham for example) typically run for just over 40 Minutes/episode. IE nearly 20 minutes of ads for a 1 hour transmission slot.

This is not acceptable which is why I (and many others) use a PVR so I can FF through the ads.

Ad blockers (And, indeed FF'ing through ads as a specific stratagy) would never have become an issue if the ads had never become a problem in the first place.
 
The way I see it, broadcasters need to adapt. My Adblocker is here to stay, and if I ever figure out how to block ads on my Android phone (hint hint) I'll be blocking ads on that too. If I was running a business and people found a way to reduce what I earn, I'd adapt, not whinge to everyone about it. It's not my problem that this is what the Internet has come to, I block ads and I have absolutely no guilt over it. Some sites have adapted, they simply block access until I turn off my Adblocker. That's fine, I just don't go there anymore, or if it's a decent site ill add an exception. Likewise, if a site has a few small ads dotted about that aren't intrusive I'll be more than happy to tolerate them. Where I have an issue is ads that have sound, pop up ads, and ads that restrict me from doing what I want, as well as those in-text ads (Hexus anyone?).

This whole issue isn't the result of businesses employing these tactics, it's the result of us letting them get away with it. Any business which loses customers due to stuff like this would ordinarily fold, but because we've allowed it to evolve in to what it is today, they will do it and it will get worse until one day your Satnav interrupts your route to advertise biscuits or something.

I couldn't care less about lost revenue to companies. If they weren't so greedy in the first place this situation wouldn't exist. Adapt or die. It's not rocket science.
 
I moved house a few months ago and watched some TV before my Internet got installed, I don't know why people waste their life watching adverts.

As for the BBC - I used to watch Match of the Day and Top Gear, now I watch Match of the Day, and I don't manage that every week. They just don't target TV programs at 18-35 year old males.
 
I miss the old BBC 3 channel! Don't really watch much online! Hopefully, their numbers drop and they bring it back!
 
I moved house a few months ago and watched some TV before my Internet got installed, I don't know why people waste their life watching adverts.

As for the BBC - I used to watch Match of the Day and Top Gear, now I watch Match of the Day, and I don't manage that every week. They just don't target TV programs at 18-35 year old males.

Because we have hardware, game consoles, sports and alcohol to keep us busy :)
 
BBC should have become digital subscription years ago. Don't have the box and sub? Don't get whatever awful dross/quality programming (delete as appropriate) that the BBC serves up.
 
Back
Top Bottom