iPlayer to require TV licence

[The Hand]

I am not a lawyer, but from reading those articles...

.. it just means it will be de-criminalised. If you don't pay, you would get a penalty notice - a bit like a parking penalty. If you don't pay that, then civl action could be taken for enforcement.

However, it will relieve pressure on the Courts as the penalty can be applied without needing a court conviction to impose a fine. It would then be up to the 'defendant' to prove that the penalty should not be applied.

I rushed my post a bit lol and didn't mention the de-criminalised approach to non-payment of the license fee. I think it is a waste of the courts time and money prosecuting people over the license fee and spending some to prison, which is pretty mind blowing from a holistic point of view.
Maybe general services such radio, news website and the news channel could be funded through general taxation(as Saracen suggested) whereas the main channels, you can pick the channels you want and pay for those which will probably workout a lot cheaper for viewers.

[aramil]

Maybe general services such radio, news website and the news channel could be funded through general taxation(as Saracen suggested) whereas the main channels, you can pick the channels you want and pay for those which will probably workout a lot cheaper for viewers.

But the cost of managing a system where everyone has different channels that they want would be costly. Easier to sell a BBC subscription package (ie all the other channels & iPlayer(maybe a standard def/HD upgrade)) and don't forget your subscription price would have to have VAT added to it's price.

Also an encrypted iPlayer/broadcast costs money for the subscription services. Noting that it would make a standard free view box useless for subscription BBC. (Sky/cable/youview, could do it). But people with just dvb TVs would loose out & would need to purchase/get a subsidised box.

As the Beeb would need to have a similar income to continue providing all it services (including iPlayer etc) it would (with tax) probably cost you more.

[santa claus]

Surely that depends on how, and how much, you use it? I'm sure there are plenty of people who could make a convincing argument that they don't get anywhere near £145-worth of content from the BBC in a year. And there are doubtless plenty who get well over that, but pay nothing because of the way they consume content.

As a funding model, the license fee is at least ten years out of date. The BBC needs to start coming up with modern, flexible alternatives that cover the wider range of media that it now broadcasts on.

You think an alternative will turn out cheaper? It will cost an arm and a leg and the quality will drop. People are paying Sky and Virgin a fortune for the tripe they pump out. And Netflix....I cancelled during the free month because it also is tripe.

[TheAnimus]

You think an alternative will turn out cheaper? It will cost an arm and a leg and the quality will drop. People are paying Sky and Virgin a fortune for the tripe they pump out. And Netflix....I cancelled during the free month because it also is tripe.

Netflix has a heck of a lot of the best BBC content available to stream.

It costs less than half the price of the BBC license. BBC has it's own fair share of tripe, for example BBC3 or Eastenders.

[scaryjim]

You think an alternative will turn out cheaper?

An alternative to what? If you don't consume BBC content, then it's not worth £145 a year. It's got nothing to do with alternatives.

[peterb]

Netflix has a heck of a lot of the best BBC content available to stream.

It costs less than half the price of the BBC license. BBC has it's own fair share of tripe, for example BBC3 or Eastenders.

Best and tripe are very subjective, and while I would agree with your assessment of tripe, the BBC has a remit to produce content that appeals to everyone, as well as an educational remit.

It doesn't have to produce content that appeals to everyone, all the time, but it should (and probably does) produce content that will be of interest to someone, sometime.

It also produces minority content that would not be commercially viable on a pay per view model, or make it worth sponsoring by advertisers. It is what you describe as tripe that attracts large audiences and would be more likely to attract revenue in both an advertising sort subscription model.

The other option, pay for the BBC out of general taxation, is effectively nationalization. It would make the BBC overtly open to political control, and nationalized industries tend not to have a very good track record.

The TV licence costs just under 40p a day.. Not a lot when a cinema ticket is £5 upwards, a pint of beer £3.50 ish.

[santa claus]

Netflix has a heck of a lot of the best BBC content available to stream.

It costs less than half the price of the BBC license. BBC has it's own fair share of tripe, for example BBC3 or Eastenders.

An alternative to what? If you don't consume BBC content, then it's not worth £145 a year. It's got nothing to do with alternatives.

Anyone would think you two didn't have two ha'pennies to rub together. As peter says, 40p a day is nothing for the most professional broadcasting service in the World.
Agreed about Eastenders though but I love Strictly.

[scaryjim]

... As peter says, 40p a day is nothing for the most professional broadcasting service in the World. ...

It is if you don't use it. You don't buy a pint of beer then pour it down the sink without tasting it. As I said before, I'm sure plenty of people are paying their 40p a day and are very happy with the amount they're getting for it. But if you don't watch TV, don't listen to the radio, and rarely read the BBC website, then what would you be getting for your 40p?

Usage is everything. You can't make a blanket statement like "The BBC is worth £145 a year", because it isn't true for everyone. Which is why, as I also said earlier, they need to develop some more flexible funding alternatives to a flat annual TV license.

[opel80uk]

Anyone would think you two didn't have two ha'pennies to rub together. As peter says, 40p a day is nothing for the most professional broadcasting service in the World.

Agreed. Reading this thread, I am reminded of Lord Darlington's assertion that cynics 'know the price of everything and the value of nothing'.

.......... but I love Strictly.

And there we must part I'm afraid Santa! Dancing on Ice is much better anyway....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeA879IROik

[peterb]

But if you don't watch TV, don't listen to the radio, and rarely read the BBC website, then what would you be getting for your 40p?

Nothing, but then you don't need a licence.

[santa claus]

And there we must part I'm afraid Santa! Dancing on Ice is much better anyway...

Haha, Todd Carty - priceless!

Nothing, but then you don't need a licence.

Mobbed. Ol' Jim likes a good old moan though peter

[scaryjim]

Nothing, but then you don't need a licence.

Erm, yeah, that was kind of my point

Santa thinks the BBC is worth £145 a year. A lot of people don't. But the choice at the minute is pay the £145, or pay nothing and don't watch TV ... at all. If you have an expensive Sky package and watch lots of sport and films but no "TV", you still pay the Beeb £145, potentially for nothing. If, like me, you read the BBC website, listen to some BBC radio (mostly sport extra and county cricket, natch ), and occasionally watch QI on iplayer catch up, it's probably not worth £145, but it's definitely worth more than I have to pay for it - which is nothing.

To say that the BBC's worth £145 misses two points: that "worth" is dependent on usage and for a lot people who have to pay the beeb isn't worth £145, and that you can extract a huge amount of value from BBC content without paying a penny. The beeb is worth more to me than I currently pay, but probably not £145 a year. However my scenario isn't currently addressed. That's an issue, IMNSHO.

[santa claus]

I think we know that you would like a package tailored specifically to your viewing. How much that would cost to administer and how that would impact on the quality of the product is anyone's guess. What if the packaged cost pushed the service beyond the means of the housebound?

40p a day....VFM!

[TheAnimus]

Anyone would think you two didn't have two ha'pennies to rub together. As peter says, 40p a day is nothing for the most professional broadcasting service in the World.
Agreed about Eastenders though but I love Strictly.

It's more that I value my time highly. I've not watched BBC in well over a week, it's not that it's not just value for money, it's just not for me.

I don't understand why the BBC should feel the need to do anything that is 'popular' like Eastenders, they should be working on producing new formats, with cheap talent, on areas that mainstream TV neglects.

As is, it's a kind of arts funding service, so why bother funding things that free market will produce? The best dramas, by far, in the last few years at least have not been BBC. However their documentaries and such are good, and rather cheap to boot.

[Barakka]

The best dramas, by far, in the last few years at least have not been BBC.

The best dramas ? or the best British Dramas ?

Certainly the BBC won the BAFTA for best drama series in 2011 (Sherlock), 2012 (The Fades), and 2013 (Last Tango in Halifax), they also won it 7 times in the previous 10 years to that. They might not be what you (or me for that matter) consider the best dramas but they are very popular, and in TV that's all that counts.

For me I can see the licence is changing, possibly going for good, and the shame will be that it will (inevitably) be the less popular content that goes as they have to focus on what the majority favours, and it's the less popular stuff that i'm moving more towards these days. The BBC has always developed, set, and achieved standards so high that all others envy in production, not just in this country but globally, and unfortunately if it keeps going the way it is it will be lost - just another thing that Britain used to be the best in the World at.

[wasabi]

The best dramas ? or the best British Dramas ?

[/i]

Strange, my TV is capable of showing stuff from other countries too. Including high quality shows from HBO. I'd check the manual...

But if we're going to limit it to Britain where the Beeb gets a nice big bag of taxpayer moolah to play with.....

I think a better model for the BBC is something like that which created the rather good Da Vinci's Demons, or going back a few years Rome.

And Film4 puts on some rather good thoughtful stuff too. Hard for private media companies to survive when there is an 800 pound well-funded gorilla in the room.