BBC license fee proposals...

Threepwood · 13 May 2016 at 17:43

For the record the BBC are a disgrace.

That aside, I believe they are missing a trick here.

They should do two things;

1: If the user has an account with them (ie has a TV license) the user should be able to sign in and watch iplayer content.

2: If the user does not have an account with them, the user should still has the option to watch iplayer, but, with adverts.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 17:47

inogen said:
Yeah BBC radio is paid for by the fairies and the unicorns.

irrelevant again

stewski · 13 May 2016 at 17:49

dowie said:
irrelevant again

I get that you don't like the BBC and the way it is funded but to ignore that their content isn't produced for free is wilful ignorance.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 17:52

Threepwood said:
For the record the BBC are a disgrace.

That aside, I believe they are missing a trick here.

They should do two things;

1: If the user has an account with them (ie has a TV license) the user should be able to sign in and watch iplayer content.

2: If the user does not have an account with them, the user should still has the option to watch iplayer, but, with adverts.

they could go one further in future, with the switch to digital just require the license to watch BBC TV content full stop via smart TVs/set top boxes

then allow people who don't want to watch BBC content to simply watch ITV, Channel 4 etc..

because the way the world is headed at the moment, if we keep this archaic TV license, there will probably be calls to expand it to internet use - Netflix and amazon prime TV are still relatively new, the online offerings available and delivered via smart TVs etc.. in 11 years time will have likely increased substantially with some companies like netflix and amazon having a substantial share of viewers

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 17:55

stewski said:
I get that you don't like the BBC and the way it is funded but to ignore that their content isn't produced for free is wilful ignorance.

What makes you think I've ignored that? I'm merely pointing out the fact that radio broadcasts don't require a license to receive so aren't really relevant among a list of things that people who don't have a license/don't watch the BBC are potentially missing.

inogen · 13 May 2016 at 17:57

dowie said:
irrelevant again

It's not irrelevant because BBC radio is funded by the TV Licence fee.

What's irrelevant is that you don't need a TV licence to listen to BBC radio.

Threepwood · 13 May 2016 at 17:58

dowie said:
they could go one further in future, with the switch to digital just require the license to watch BBC TV content full stop via smart TVs/set top boxes

Yes, I totally agree.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 17:58

inogen said:
It's not irrelevant because BBC radio is funded by the TV Licence fee.

What's irrelevant is that you don't need a TV licence to listen to BBC radio.

no that was completely relevant, that was the whole point after all, people who don't pay for a license aren't missing out on the radio aspect

stewski · 13 May 2016 at 17:59

dowie said:
What makes you think I've ignored that? I'm merely pointing out the fact that radio broadcasts don't require a license to receive so aren't really relevant among a list of things that people who don't have a license/don't watch the BBC are potentially missing.

But you accept that radio content is very much amongst the things that, should we change the license fee model to subscription, might not be viable?

Pottsey · 13 May 2016 at 18:00

Rossi~ said:
But you should be paying for one under the TV licensing rules.

No they shouldn't. If you own a device that can receive live TV but do not watch live TV you don't need a license. You only need a license if you watch live TV, not if you have a device that can receive live TV but isn't used.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 18:07

stewski said:
But you accept that radio content is very much amongst the things that, should we change the license fee model to subscription, might not be viable?

It might it might not be, but that is another subject.

IMO they could fund most of the BBC via commercials along the lines of Channel 4 with profits diverted to funding PSB requirements... then have additional subsidy from govt for running things like the BBC monitoring service, world service, local radio services... i.e. stuff that is legitimately public service related. EastEnders, Radio 1 etc.. can be funded by adverts - main stream entertainment doesn't need subsidy.

The license fee itself is unfair, archaic and needlessly taking up 10% of the time of UK magistrates courts.

stewski · 13 May 2016 at 18:13

dowie said:
It might it might not be, but that is another subject.

IMO they could fund most of the BBC via commercials along the lines of Channel 4 with profits diverted to funding PSB requirements... then have additional subsidy from govt for running things like the BBC monitoring service, world service, local radio services... i.e. stuff that is legitimately public service related. EastEnders, Radio 1 etc.. can be funded by adverts - main stream entertainment doesn't need subsidy.

We already have channel 4 doing it's best to be a public service commercial broadcaster and with the best will in the world Cbeebies, widespread radio, et al aren't coming from that model at the moment.

As for peaky blinders, line of duty etc with adverts, go jump off a cliff, thank you

visibleman · 13 May 2016 at 18:13

dowie said:
If that is the case then what is wrong with a subscription model?

It couldn't be applied to the entirety of the BBC; you'd end up having a mishmash of different models for different areas of the BBC.

Basher said:
The point is that some people don't like the idea of paying the BBC a fee when they don't watch anything produced by the BBC.

That'd only be a valid argument if the licence fee was purely used for TV content but that's not the case.

Cyanide said:
The TV licence pays for the BBCs TV, radio & web services which are not needed.

Licence fee pays for a lot more than content.

Threepwood said:
2: If the user does not have an account with them, the user should still has the option to watch iplayer, but, with adverts.

I don't doubt something like that is already being discussed, although it's potentially a slippery slope.

Glaucus · 13 May 2016 at 18:20

Psi Jay said:
But I'm sure you can't watch live streams via anywhere without a licence because it's live, correct me if I am wrong of course.

Jay

It is very clear, just people just can't be bothered to find out and you are very wrong.
You need a license if you watch or record live streams that are on being broadcast on conventional tv.
So any channel on freeview, sky, virgin etc. Thus includes On demand/catch up services that include live streaming like iplayer, 4od, now TV. But only the live streaming part of the service.
You do not heed a license to watch any old internet live stream be it games on twitch, nasaTV or any other streaming service.

dowie said:
Well it doesn't seem to be very clear what is defined as TV

If I open up Facebook and the newsfeed now shows live streams as I scroll past do they count as a TV broadcast? What about a webcam or Skype or the gamers who stream their game play to thousands?
Seems like a grey area, what is the distinction between that and live 'TV' delivered over the internet?

No grey area at all. TV broadcast means exactly that. Is it being shown on conventional TV, freeview, virgin, sky.
So no, games, webcams, Skype etc are not included in legislation as none of these are being shown on conventional TV.

Glaucus · 13 May 2016 at 18:23

Threepwood said:
For the record the BBC are a disgrace.

That aside, I believe they are missing a trick here.

They should do two things;

1: If the user has an account with them (ie has a TV license) the user should be able to sign in and watch iplayer content.

2: If the user does not have an account with them, the user should still has the option to watch iplayer, but, with adverts.

They can't do any off that. With out a change in law. BBc are not free to just do what they want.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 18:26

stewski said:
We already have channel 4 doing it's best to be a public service commercial broadcaster and with the best will in the world Cbeebies, widespread radio, et al aren't coming from that model at the moment.

Channel 4 isn't involved in Radio AFAIK, it seems to be perfectly capable of funding its operations. The fact that it is smaller (and younger) than the BBC doesn't infer that there is something flawed about its funding model.

dowie · 13 May 2016 at 18:28

Glaucus said:
No grey area at all. TV broadcast means exactly that. Is it being shown on conventional TV, freeview, virgin, sky.
So no, games, webcams, Skype etc are not included in legislation as none of these are being shown on conventional TV.

Aside from adding 'conventional' in front of TV you've not explained the difference there. At what point does something become a 'conventional' TV station? I mean BBC 3 is online only is that 'conventional TV'? If some random company started up a similar online only channel are they classed as TV? How about two guys in their bedroom broadcasting their new 'TV' channel via youtube or maybe their own website?

Glaucus · 13 May 2016 at 18:30

dowie said:
Aside from adding 'conventional' in front of TV you've not explained the difference there.

What, did you miss conventional = freeview, sky, virgin bit.

The legislation only covers broadcasts on those services. So if it's not broadcast live on those services it is not classified as TV broadcast.
Twitch, youtube etc are not covered, there's no grey area, It's clearly stated.

visibleman · 13 May 2016 at 18:32

dowie said:
..it seems to be perfectly capable of funding its operations

Depends what you class as capable. Their operating budget is vastly lower than that of the BBC's and it does show in some of their services when compared.

stewski · 13 May 2016 at 18:33

dowie said:
Channel 4 isn't involved in Radio AFAIK, it seems to be perfectly capable of funding its operations. The fact that it is smaller (and younger) than the BBC doesn't infer that there is something flawed about its funding model.

Nothing like CBeebies/CBBC output is occurring and frankly to put adverts in children's programming is abhorrent IMHO.

As for radio, the commercial model fails to provide anything like the beeb's output and is likely to.

It's easy/lazy to just say the beeb should be commercial when there is a clear need for an impartial high quality public service orientated organisation in a nation such as Britain. If the Beeb functions as such is a matter for debate, perhaps if successive governments didn't mess with it every 10 years it would be.

We are not an annex state of America.