iPlayer to require TV licence

[Saracen]

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.

[Agent]

I don't (and won't) have a TV license, but very occasionally use iPlayer.

I'd be against it purely because it would work out a rip off for me. £145 for a handful of programs over the year?
I'll bet on there not being an option to 'buy in' to iPlayer access for the shows I want to watch, but rather there will be a take it or leave it attitude.

Good luck on them trying to enforce it though.

[peterb]

It is just catching up with technical advances. As far as broadcast TV is concerned, the internet is no more or less than wireless broadcast or conventional TV, so there is no reason why inlayer should be exempt. The other option would be to make iplayer a subscription service.

Interestingly, (and slightly off topic) if you set up a broadcast internet TV station (broadcasting, rather than video on demand) you legally require a broadcast licence from Ofcom - which raises some questions about tube broadcast, although I think there are criteria concerning the amount of content that is being broadcast.

https://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-br...licences/tlcs/ (And the cost is currently £2,500/a year)

[kalniel]

iPlayer 'watch live' already requires a TV license, so guess this is just applying to the catch up bit.

[HalloweenJack]

hmmmm so all those USA based streaming esports matches to your pc need an Ofcom licence then do they

[peterb]

hmmmm so all those USA based streaming esports matches to your pc need an Ofcom licence then do they

No, Ofcom has no jurisdiction over US based companies, whether it is cable, satellite or IP, but if the company or individual is based in the UK, then yes, they do.

[Agent]

It is just catching up with technical advances. As far as broadcast TV is concerned, the internet is no more or less than wireless broadcast or conventional TV, so there is no reason why inlayer should be exempt. The other option would be to make iplayer a subscription service.

Yes, but it's the same old story with the BBC and the government in general for that matter: They catch up when it suits them, with it twisted to suit their wants.

There was no reason at all why the BBC (or the entire spectrum) couldn't have been encrypted from day one on freeview / whatever service, with a card required for decoding. It could have been the same price as a TV licence (or less) and cut out the need for 'enforcement' by the thugs from Capita, who are very well known for scaring people into paying.

The problem is that it wouldn't have worked. People might have woken up and stopped being fed crap every evening, and they would have lost millions.

There is no technological reason why they couldn't implement a pay-per-show / series system, but I'll put money on it they won't.

Interestingly, (and slightly off topic) if you set up a broadcast internet TV station (broadcasting, rather than video on demand) you legally require a broadcast licence from Ofcom - which raises some questions about tube broadcast, although I think there are criteria concerning the amount of content that is being broadcast.

https://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-br...licences/tlcs/ (And the cost is currently £2,500/a year)

And what if the 'broadcast' is coming from a server hosted abroad?
What about UStream and Twitch that's built into every PS4? They technically broadcast.

It's crazy.

[peterb]

Yes, but it's the same old story with the BBC and the government in general for that matter: They catch up when it suits them, with it twisted to suit their wants.

There was no reason at all why the BBC (or the entire spectrum) couldn't have been encrypted from day one on freeview / whatever service, with a card required for decoding. It could have been the same price as a TV licence (or less) and cut out the need for 'enforcement' by the thugs from Capita, who are very well known for scaring people into paying.

The problem is that it wouldn't have worked. People might have woken up and stopped being fed crap every evening, and they would have lost millions.

Well not from day one, because there were still analogue broadcasts, and the intention was for a gradual changeover, eventually resulting in the cessation of the analogue broadcast - which has now happened. A 'big bang' approach would not have been possible because of the expense in providing the parallel infrastructure, and the manufacturing capabilities for the decoders. And not all decoders have the facility for decryption anyway, or card readers for that matter.

And what if the 'broadcast' is coming from a server hosted abroad?

It is where the broadcast originates that matters, the server can be anywhere.

about UStream and Twitch that's built into every PS4? They technically broadcast.

It's crazy.

Yes technically they are - although I doubt Ofcom would bother (or know) about Joe Blogs streaming to a few mates, but if you started a streaming service which you were actively advertising/gaining sponsors etc, and broadcasting a regular schedule, then they may well take an interest.

[Zak33]

What WOULD be bad is if BBC couldn't afford to maintain iPlayer.....

so if it needs SOME cost... they it'll be my wallet out.

buy as Agent says.. how on earth is that enforceable in the current world?

it's not... not yet anyway.

[TheAnimus]

There is no technological reason why they couldn't implement a pay-per-show / series system, but I'll put money on it they won't.

I've heard it said that it is the very reason people want this kind of thing the BBC should exist.

Some say that the BBC only ever got into television so we could have tubes for radar, but I digress. Anyway, the BBC TV license is designed to be about making shows that wouldn't be popular.

Ok, it's a bunch of I'm more cultured than you types deciding what we should be watching instead. At least I understand that idea. Only making high brow programming that is educational. Instead we get estenders.

I struggle to think of any program I would miss if the BBC went away.

But anyway, the whole idea is people shouldn't have the choice.

[Agent]

Well not from day one, because there were still analogue broadcasts, and the intention was for a gradual changeover, eventually resulting in the cessation of the analogue broadcast - which has now happened. A 'big bang' approach would not have been possible because of the expense in providing the parallel infrastructure, and the manufacturing capabilities for the decoders. And not all decoders have the facility for decryption anyway, or card readers for that matter.

Gradual change over or not - digital could have been implemented with encryption from day one. The solution was simple - buy your license and get an included decryption card/s, which are very cheap to make.
To the end user there would have been almost no difference. They should legally have a license anyway, so they wouldn't have received any less of a service.

As for the lack of a slot - yep, but that's another con. It was officially part of the original specification for all Freeview boxes, but the decision was reversed at the last second. Call me a cynic, but you only need to look at the members on the Freeview consortium to understand why they might not want it. Many of the channels that you'd need a card for would be competitors to them. The costs to add them to a box is negligible.

It is where the broadcast originates that matters, the server can be anywhere.

Yes technically they are - although I doubt Ofcom would bother (or know) about Joe Blogs streaming to a few mates, but if you started a streaming service which you were actively advertising/gaining sponsors etc, and broadcasting a regular schedule, then they may well take an interest.

If that's the case then there is little to no advantage of running the server from the UK. Might as well just go with a country close with decent internet.

[TheAnimus]

buy as Agent says.. how on earth is that enforceable in the current world?

only allow IP address registered against UK address (in case of more than one, ISP has to handle this data in a certain format) cross check with council records for occupancy thus connections per IP.

It would be funny when residential customers would then start forwarding iPlayer, but the quality would drop no doubt.

[Willzzz]

I feel I get a good deal currently, you can't complain about free.
I wouldn't be happy about paying the full license fee though, so I wouldn't.

[Agent]

What WOULD be bad is if BBC couldn't afford to maintain iPlayer....

It would be bad for the people that use it, sure, but the BBC is a business. If they can't sustain a service then it should be dropped or prices should be increased.

And that's the crux of the issue for me. I'll pay for content without an issue (huge DVD/Blu-Ray collection, along with Netflix), but give me the choice to pay for the content I want to buy.

I often wonder if anyone really thinks £145 is good value for money for a year?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/20...cence_fee.html

The figures are staggering.

[Zak33]

I often wonder if anyone really thinks £145 is good value for money for a year?

I think it's awesome value!

Awesome.

for 39p per day my boy gets BBCB and Ceebeebies before that

I get content with history, and finance and drama,

I also get loads of old crap but .... other people like it.

(I don't buy a paper.... I don't need to cos I use BBC News app and work from there. though I know not how the rest of the BBC is funded)

Hard to put a value on even a cars tax disc in comparison (and the average tax disc on a car is similar price to TV license)

Roads... full of pot holes

BBC services... working and good for me

But I've always thought TV licence was value.

[rob4001]

only allow IP address registered against UK address (in case of more than one, ISP has to handle this data in a certain format) cross check with council records for occupancy thus connections per IP.

It would be funny when residential customers would then start forwarding iPlayer, but the quality would drop no doubt.

I don't know about you but I'd have a serious problem with the council checking and cross referring my finances and isp. Who would pay for all these council workers scrutinising your private financial data for the bbc?