Compare the value of it now with Netflix at £6/month and it looks like robbery to me.
It might have been good value back when we had 5 channels. Nowadays could live without it but the rules make it very very hard to avoid paying the Beeb tax even if you legitimately don't want it.
That is crazy, crazy logic. I mean, seriously.Originally Posted by Zak33
I paid £23.10 for some bread, and it's not even regular bread, it's artisan bread. Meanwhile, we still don't have a flying car that simultaneously cures cancer whilst bringing me to climax. I mean that bread is amazing value by comparison, my worthless non avation automotive vehicle, which can't even cure a common cold or do anything but jiggle the gear stick cost £15,000! What a rip off! The breads a bargin.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
This is great news, I am glad they have finally found a way to close the loopholes
It's clearly going to be nigh on impossible to enforce, but then it's hard enough to enforce existing licences, so not a lot will change there..but hopefully enough people who are currently freeloading when it comes to watching TV will pay up to justify the cost of changing the law/policy.
I don't understand why people have such a problem with a TV licence - especially people who understand how the world/business/politics etc work. People at the BBC don't work for free, they have to get paid somehow..and that somehow is a mixture between government grants (which, if anything, is what you should be complaining about..although that in itself is justifiable in other ways,but I digress), UK paying customers (i.e. licence fee payers) and direct/international sales.
Watching iPlayer without a licence (whether live or time shifted) is frankly no better than streaming or downloading TV shows that you have not paid for on the internet - i.e. piracy. It really is that simple.
I do completely agree that the ideal model for consumers is a pay for what you watch system, and a PPV system may work well for those that only want to watch one or two shows a year..but for the vast majority of us who enjoy content through ought the year, the BBC represents tremendous value. Compare it to Sky or Virgin Media, who put out more drivel and reality TV than anything else, and your £145 a year is amazingly cheap for what you get. (yes I know the BBC put out strictly and "the voice", but as a % of programming that sort of rubbish is a tiny number).
I'm sure we'll see the day when subscription services will be announced that will replace the very simple but hard to enforce TV licence, but we're a good few years off that yet. You have to remember that pretty much everyone in the UK watches TV, and it was hard enough (and costly enough) switching everyone over to free view on it's own, let alone the idea of switching to some sort of encryption/card based/sub based system. Sure the cards may be cheap but decent encryption tech is very expensive, and I expect it would take many many years to recoup the cost - if ever. As a minimum it would push up the cost of providing the service, which would likely cause even more of a fuss.
I'll finish my mini-rant with the same point I started with - this change simply would simply close a dodgy loophole in the law that allowed people to pirate BBC TV shows legally. Nothing more than that. (NB to clarify, this is in the context of a potential change in the law - currently it is perfectly legal to watch time shifted content on iPlayer without a licence)
Last edited by Spud1; 27-02-2014 at 08:56 AM. Reason: clarity
Why all ISPs would have to pay for it! Obviously. That way they could say the license fee hadn't risen in price!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
No chance. They're laying people off left right and centre. They wouldn't have the resources before, and definitely don't now. Anyone who is stupid enough to give councils more snooping power should frankly be shot. They do not need them and cannot be trusted with them.
That depends whether you like the output.
I was of the same mind until recently we were given an old freeview box. Our analogue TV returned to life and now we can watch BBC4. It seems to be where they stick the in-depth educational programmes I remember of old. And we have top gear access again. All is well.
I lived without a TV licence (or TV) for most of the last 8 years. Didn't miss it at all. And yes, I did watch iplayer. Probably 3 programmes a week, if that. In summer less than that even, some weeks 0 depending on work. If they had a pay per iplayer view I would have paid. But there was no way I was paying £145 for something that legally I didn't have to, and which I would simply have declined to watch if it had legally been necessary to have a TV licence. Some of those programmes we now own the DVD box set for. So the Beeb got their money via another route.
Sorry spud, didn't read the rest of your rant, but as far as this line goes you're plain wrong. It's the BBCs own rules that say you don't need a TV License to watch catch up TV on iplayer. It's using a service entirely legally and within the terms and conditions of that service. How you can claim that is "no better than" piracy is beyond me. IF they change the terms to require a TV License to watch catch up TV, then you might have a point. But that's not the current situation.
I saw a TV report of proposals made by the current BBC supremo to extend the TV licence to include accessing BBC iPlayer.
Of course, it's a proposal, and the decision is for government/Parliament, not the BBC, but .... it's on their radar. Actively. Officially.
Views?
Me? I don't have a problem with it. But there's going to be some on here that are ..... not happy .... about the possibility.But the original post was about a proposal bringing any access to iplayer into the licensing regime.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Indeed, and if they do that, I can see a case for stating that watching iplayer without a license is akin to piracy (and I'll have a difficult decision to make about my BBC content consumption habits).But the original post was about a proposal bringing any access to iplayer into the licensing regime.
But, unless I missed it in my skim of Spud's post, that's not what he was saying. He was saying that watching catch-up on iplayer now, under the current rules is "no better than ... piracy" if you don't have a TV license. Seriously? Using a system in accordance with its own T&Cs is no better than piracy?
Spud may have ranted a bit but I think (and stress think ) his point was that a case can be made why effectively freeloading on BBC content on iPlayer without paying for it is morally similar to piracy. Not that it is piracy.Indeed, and if they do that, I can see a case for stating that watching iplayer without a license is akin to piracy (and I'll have a difficult decision to make about my BBC content consumption habits).
But, unless I missed it in my skim of Spud's post, that's not what he was saying. He was saying that watching catch-up on iplayer now, under the current rules is "no better than ... piracy" if you don't have a TV license. Seriously? Using a system in accordance with its own T&Cs is no better than piracy?
To a point, I agree.
But .... the moral equivalence is limited by a couple of significant issues, IMHO.
First, it's merely using the system exactly the way it was written, even if that may not have been how it was intended.mThis, in fact, is the same argument I've made over tax avoidance. Don't moan at those avouding tax. Moan at those that wrote the rules and created the system under which it's possible.
If I can save tax by putting savings in a tax-free ISA rather than a taxable savings account, I will. If I can use other legal, open legitimate methods to reduce my tax liability, I will. If government changes tax rules, I reserve the right to either chanfe where my money is, ir how I use it, but I will comply with the law. But I do get irate when pompous, pontificating politicians moan that I'm not paying the tax I "should" when I'm using the very rules they were elected, and are paid, to create.
And ditto iPlayer.
I don't use it, but if I did, and had no need for broadcast TV reception, I wouldn't (as I currently do) oay for a licence. Uf the system is set up so that I can legally watch some BBC content on iPlayer without needing a licence, it's not fair to moan at me if I do exactly that.
And the second reason limiting miral equivalence to piracy is that there is a way to pay for a film I might pirate, that being to buy it. There is, as far as I'm aware, no way to pay either on a per-programme basis, or even for an iPlayer-only subscription.
The ONLY way, currently, I'm aware I could pay for accessing BBC content via iPlayer is a TV licence, which is a bit extreme for a program here and there.
Some here have already said that if they could pay for iPlayer content, say, per programme, they would. But they can't.
So yes, they're accessing BBC content without contributing (other than maybe through DVD purchases) to the cost, BUT, at least in part, that's because there is no way to do so. Besides, currently, it's how the system works. Piracy, it ain't, legally or morally. As I read it, I don't think spud meant it quite that way. But he'll correct me if he did, I'm sure.
Sorry I should have been more clear - currently it's not piracy to watch time shifted content on iPlayer without a licence - it's perfectly legal. It is morally wrong imo, as it's exploiting a loophole in the law, but it is 100% legal
The thread is about a change in the law/licencing rules that would make it illegal, so in my final statement I was talking about the situation when you would be required to have a TV licence, not the current situation. If/when this actually comes in to force.
As I weakly implied I do agree with your other points too Saracen (to a point) - the fact there is no better process to pay for the content you actually want to watch, is a problem. It's all or nothing thanks to a fairly old fashioned rule regarding the licence, and there are better solutions out there - although I believe the cost of implementing such a system will be more than the BBC would get back as a result, even if it would turn out to be fairer in the end. I would have the same argument against Sky - I am paying £30odd a month for Sky, for the sake of watching about 5 of their channels. I would much rather just pay for those 5, but if I want to watch them..I am forced to pay the whole lot. I know it's not exactly the same situation being as thats in addition to my TV licence fee (so it's an add-on service) but the principle is identical imo.
Of course we could always remove the licence fee altogether and allow advertising and product placement - but personally I wouldn't want that, not in a million years.
Last edited by Spud1; 27-02-2014 at 08:54 AM.
You see, here's where we disagree. This isn't a loophole. It's the express decision of the body providing the content. They get to say what goes on catch up, how long it's there for, and who can access it. I'll run with Saracen's tax anaology, but please bear with me because I'm liable to run on for a bit... It is morally wrong imo, as it's exploiting a loophole in the law, but it is 100% legal
I've heard a nice little play on tax issues based around declining the verb "to tax" - I plan tax, you avoid tax, he/she/it evades tax. In that sense there's three states. Tax evasion is deliberately paying less tax than you should by illegal means, and this would - in our analogy - be out and out piracy. Then there's tax avoidance, which is using legal means to pay less tax than was intended under the spirit of the law. This is, essentially, what you are claiming non-license payers watching catch-up are doing.
However, that doesn't ring true to me. I don't see where in the letter of the law there is also a spirit that non-license payers shouldn't watch iplayer catch-up. The fact that they are discussing changing the rules, in fact, suggests to me that the spirit was always intended to allow non-license payers access to catch up. So I'd argue that those people are in the tax planning category - they are using the legal provisions available, as intended by the law makers.
I'm afraid I just can't see how this becomes a moral issue. I don't see where the grey area is. I also don't see where you stop - is it immoral to read news stories on the BBC website without a TV license? Is it immoral to listen to BBC radio stations? The BBC has always had free content that didn't require a license. I don't see how iplayer catch-up is any different.
I see what you are saying..and we are entitled to disagree of course
I see the "spirit" of the licence as basically paying for BBC's TV content. Not for radio, News etc, although I of course appreciate how muddled it becomes when you consider other services. In the same way that the spirit of income tax law is to pay tax on your income.
There are ways around both situations, but at the end of the day, (i feel that) you should be paying to watch BBC TV shows, and that you should pay tax on your income.
It becomes a moral issue because there is a cost to make a TV show, and that cost is funded by a large number of people, who are all paying out £145 a year to fund the making of that particular show. If I am paying for that content, then why should someone else be able to get exactly the same content for free? You could argue that I am paying for the privilege of watching it live I guess, but imo that is stretching it a bit.
I guess what you'd look at next (and what you start discussing) is the rational behind the change, as that has an effect on my comments above. If it's a concious decision to explicitly allow anyone to watch catch-up content FOC then fine, that's not against the spirit of the law. Personally I don't think it's the case here though, I think the law was never updated as it's nearly impossible to enforce, and it takes too long..it was quicker to just get the service going and worry about it later on, which appears to be what they have done.
My key point though is centred around paying for the content in some way - the shows are not made for free, and the current law allows you to get around that fact..but ultimately someone is still paying for it. In my opinion, that should be everyone who consumes that content, just like with any other commercial TV service.
Fine but how about bringing the BBC payment platform up to date with the delivery platform? Currently the beeb is a TV tax. In the 80s if you had a telly you probably would have wanted BBC stuff. Nowadays most can do without, and could buy better elsewhere for £145.
It's not a tax, but that issue aside - I don't disagree that there are better solutions out there..however thats totally separate from the issue of whether you should have to pay to watch the content or not. I don't like many laws and think there are better ways around it, but we still need to abide by them...
so what if I just listen to the radio?
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ102/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote