View Full Version : NEWS: BBC given the go-ahead to end free viewing on iPlayer
Neil McCauley
03-03-2016, 09:57
Andy Clough: Those without a licence fee will soon be prevented from watching catch-up TV on iPlayer for free, says culture secretary John Whittingdale.
Speaking at the Oxford Media Convention, Whittingdale told delegates he would bring forward the necessary legislation in the current parliamentary session. The licence fee will be extended to cover more than just those watching conventional TVs.
At the moment only UK TV licence holders can use the iPlayer to watch live BBC broadcasts, but anyone without a licence can still view the shows later on catch-up.
Whittingdale said: "Having discussed this with the BBC and the BBC Trust, I will be bringing forward, as soon as practicable, secondary legislation which will extend the current TV licensing regime, not only to cover those watching the BBC live but also those watching the BBC on catch-up through the iPlayer."
The culture secrtary added: "Giving a free ride to those who enjoy Sherlock or Bake Off an hour, a day or a week after they were broadcast was never intended and is wrong."
A spokeswoman for the BBC said: "We are happy to have reached an agreement with the Secretary of State on how to close the iPlayer loophole. Its swift closure will help give the BBC funding certainty.
The licence is wrong anyways. It should be scrapped. I have to pay it yet never watch it
I will be interested to see how they enforce this.
Ammonite Audio
03-03-2016, 10:12
I will be interested to see how they enforce this.
Quite. I doubt that the BBC has the technological means to do this. Being a public body, they will probably spend more on IT systems than they will ever recoup from fee revenues.
I will be interested to see how they enforce this.
In that same way any subscription based internet service is regulated, by blocking non-subscribers from accessing content.
The technology has been around for some time - hardly 'rocket science' :lol:
I would think the combination of location and licence number would solve it to a point, although it would have limitations. Maybe adding a card with your address ... Its a silly remnant from the olden days. Govts like it as it can give them leverage should they want to use it, and bbc love it as they dont have to bother improving the service to suit the public if they dont want to. Also they dont have to get sponsors and ads which can mean doing things other folk want.
I would think the combination of location and licence number would solve it to a point, although it would have limitations. Maybe adding a card with your address ...
Yes, they could do it that way, but actually doing it is different from saying they are going to do it. At the moment the license is tied to a location, your home, but how would that work if you wanted to watch iplayer away from home, how would they know if its you the license payer, or someone else in your family. Or just someone who has the magic number that relates to the license. At the moment anyone who lives in my house can watch the TV as I pay the license. Can those same people still watch the TV when (for example) they are at university?
At the moment iplayer is limited to restrict non UK IP addresses from watching, but thats simple to work around using a VPN service.
Its another case where the innocent person is being asked to do a lot just to have what they had in the past, I have to give them a card number? thats not a trivial thing to bolt on, and its a whole new set of running costs that the iplayer doesnt have at the moment. Just making it PCI compliant will not be trivial.
Ali Tait
03-03-2016, 11:35
In that same way any subscription based internet service is regulated, by blocking non-subscribers from accessing content.
The technology has been around for some time - hardly 'rocket science' :lol:
Nick knows rather a lot about computers...;)
Sure its not infalable or convenient. It will i think cause a huge drop off on viewing figures however they do it. Folk who dont pay a fee are unlikely to start so whats the point in spending cash this way and getting it enshrined in law? Its political bollocks and sure there will be covet handshakes behind closed doors.
I know i am a cynical old sod but its be ause ive seen this kind of bollocks many times. I watch freeview and the only channels that charge me are the bbc ones which i rarely if ever watch..why not make it subscription service? Coz its shit and folk wouldnt pay 150 quid a year for bbc services...that sums up the whole thing
Sure its not infalable or convenient. It will i think cause a huge drop off on viewing figures however they do it. Folk who dont pay a fee are unlikely to start so whats the point in spending cash this way and getting it enshrined in law? Its political bollocks and sure there will be covet handshakes behind closed doors.
I know i am a cynical old sod but its be ause ive seen this kind of bollocks many times. I watch freeview and the only channels that charge me are the bbc ones which i rarely if ever watch..why not make it subscription service? Coz its shit and folk wouldnt pay 150 quid a year for bbc services...that sums up the whole thing
Yes, it just shows to me that Whittingdale is in the pocket of the media companies. At the same time he is trying to equate blocking adds on websites as theft, soon fast forwarding through the adverts on TV will be a crime as well.
Ali Tait
03-03-2016, 12:01
Another way the government is trying to get rid of the BBC perhaps?
Make it less and less palatable so they can see themselves as justified in shutting it down. Then their mate Murdoch will have complete control of the media in the UK.
Thats my thought, the BBC were given this crum as they were forced to pay for free licences for OAP, previously the Government paid for them. But as has been said, I cant see one extra license being purchased because of this, all it will do is stop more people watching, so pushing them closer to Mordoch.
The days of commercial broadcast TV are numbered anyway. Everyone fast-forwards through the adverts now, or watches on line at a time of their choosing. On line advertisements are notoriously unsuccessful, even when they are not being blocked. Soon there will not be the revenue stream to make new shows.
That will only leave the BBC to actually make new programmes and they are so wasteful and top-heavy only a fraction of the licence fee actually gets spent on production. That will get even worse once they become the only game in town.
On line advertisements are notoriously unsuccessful
While I agree with the rest you have said, google's numbers would question the above
"Google has announced its Q3 2015 earnings, showing strong growth in revenues and net income for the quarter compared to last year. Total revenues for the quarter were $18.7 billion, which is a 13 percent growth over 2014. Net income came in at $3.979 billion, up from $2.739 billion in 2014."
I could live with that level of unsuccessful :-)
Netflix has shown that it is possible to offer a subscription service without adverts and to make their own shows as part of the deal.
Amazon and sky seem to be thriving with their subscriptions too.
Arkless Electronics
03-03-2016, 12:44
I'll just continue to get my TV programs and films via illegal means as I have for years anyway ;) I don't have a license as I watch so little TV anyway (90% crap for morons). Plenty of helpful people will capture the shows and upload them to torrent sites.... with all the "this program unavailable" when it's episode 2 of a 4 part series etc I often have to get them like this anyway! Programs from commercial channels I usually torrent as you can't fast forward the ads if you use the official catch up services...
anthonyTD
03-03-2016, 12:54
I agree,
Most of whats on terrestrial TV is Bollox, perpetrated specificaly for the dumbing down of society!
Bloody soaps, reality shows, etc, etc.:rolleyes:
I realy hope people wake up soon :(
A...
While I agree with the rest you have said, google's numbers would question the above
"Google has announced its Q3 2015 earnings, showing strong growth in revenues and net income for the quarter compared to last year. Total revenues for the quarter were $18.7 billion, which is a 13 percent growth over 2014. Net income came in at $3.979 billion, up from $2.739 billion in 2014."
I could live with that level of unsuccessful :-)
Netflix has shown that it is possible to offer a subscription service without adverts and to make their own shows as part of the deal.
Google derive their revenue from people paying to advertise with them, not from the adverts themselves. So Google's profit does not stem from directly from the success of the ads, rather their ability to convince advertisers to use their service.
Unless you advertise free with Google and only pay for the ads that generate sales, but I'm not aware that that is how it works.
Unless you advertise free with Google and only pay for the ads that generate sales, but I'm not aware that that is how it works.
You pay for the adds that get clicked on, so its in Googles interest to show relevant adds.
Why would the advertisers pay Google that much cash if it didnt generate sales for them?
And the irony is that this thread started with what is in effect an on line add.
I've tried to find a link to the study I read re the efficacy of on-line adverts but can't find it right now.
I'm sure that on line ads do result in sales however the cost/benefit ratio is what matters. No-one will pay big money for an ad that brings in only a few sales, consequently on-line advertising is very cheap compared to press or television.
That was the gist of it, anyway. Perhaps someone who is in marketing or advertising can elucidate?
Ive noticed on some sites the adds are place in such a way that accidental clicking was inevitable. The advertisors have now often added a did you click on this accidentally so you wont get paid for those accidents
I've tried to find a link to the study I read re the efficacy of on-line adverts but can't find it right now.
I'm sure that on line ads do result in sales however the cost/benefit ratio is what matters. No-one will pay big money for an ad that brings in only a few sales, consequently on-line advertising is very cheap compared to press or television.
That was the gist of it, anyway. Perhaps someone who is in marketing or advertising can elucidate?
On line adds are like other form of direct marketing. A individual add in front of a individual is cheap, but it scales, do that a million times and the cost goes up and so does the benefit. But the ratio stays the same. No different from press tv or any other form. In fact the way google ads work is that the cost per click you are prepared to pay is set by the advertiser, and then google uses that information as part of deciding what add to show at any particular time. Google's system is designed to provide the best add (to the viewer = most reliant and of interest) (to the advertiser = most likely to result in a sale). The two side work together the custoemr is more likely to click on a add for something they are interested in, and that means they are more likely to buy the product.
But if you are using the fact that a individual click on an on line add is less costly that a 30 second slot on US TV during the Superbowl as a justification for your statement "On line advertisements are notoriously unsuccessful", then I suggest you are wrong.
The licence is wrong anyways. It should be scrapped. I have to pay it yet never watch it
If you never watch TV, why do you have a licence?
But if you are using the fact that a individual click on an on line add is less costly that a 30 second slot on US TV during the Superbowl as a justification for your statement "On line advertisements are notoriously unsuccessful", then I suggest you are wrong.
No. I'm suggesting that for the same amount of spend the Superbowl TV advert will create more sales. I don't know that for a fact, though.
The licence is wrong anyways. It should be scrapped. I have to pay it yet never watch it
Why? If you don't watch it you don't need to pay it, simple's.
Why? If you don't watch it you don't need to pay it, simple's.
If you watch any tv you have to pay the bbc for the privilage. If you dont then you are breaking the law
Agreed, but you said you didn't watch any TV, confused? Do you mean you never watch the BBC.
I've not had a licence for over 3 years, I only watch iPlayer so don't need a licence.
I only watch yesterday,film 4 and channel 4 tbh. All free to view channels. I would be quite happy to have bbc locked to payers. Its an archaic benefit they shouldnt receive. Govts want to keep it as they can shake it at bbc if they dont play ball.
If you watch any tv you have to pay the bbc for the privilage. If you dont then you are breaking the law
Only though if you watch it "as its been broadcast"....
So saying summit like if you have equipment capable of receiving a broadcast you need a licence......is bollocks.
Though thats not always made clear. Funny that.
I don't watch commercial TV, yet I have to pay for it!
spendorman
01-09-2016, 08:21
It's happened today. In a way I'm glad. I don't watch live TV, the only thing (I'm ashamed of admitting!) that I watched on iplayer was Eastenders.
The BBC have now weaned me off this.
Hope this is the precursor to the licence attitude being changed then. They cannot have it both ways, or shouldn,t
The Black Adder
01-09-2016, 09:06
The BBC make so much dross. Strictly come dancing and now the re-birth of Are you being served... Not only that but the salary's of celebrity's, news readers and the like are astronomically out of balance.
The BBC had an article a month or so ago saying that everyone who earned over 450k per annum should be named. This was swiftly merged with an article about Scotland having their own 6 o'clock news.... eh? bonkers. Since then the story has, well... ahem, gone away.
I am not a fan of celebrity one iota.
They 'can' make some great original content but bringing back stuff and the likes makes me switch off instantly.
Hope this is the precursor to the licence attitude being changed then. They cannot have it both ways, or shouldn,t
Could you expand on this?
I thought they were charging for iplayer, but its just to stop non licence payers getting it. I still think the licence is a farce in the 21st century. They should be standing on their own feet, as they are now lackies to the govt, as well as putting on crap. I basically never watch it or itv for rhat matter but need to give them money for nothing
Simon_LDT
01-09-2016, 10:48
I thought that if you own a TV, you have the pay the license fee (even if you don't watch BBC channels)? I've got Sky which is expensive enough as it is but I watch loads of TV shows and films on there so I'm getting something out of it. I don't watch BBC at all yet I'm still paying the license because I own a TV and receive the channel.
They need to scrap the license and just make the BBC channels pay-per-view subscription. They won't though, because they would lose a fortune as there are many people paying the fee that shouldn't be doing so and they'd lose this revenue stream.
As I've said before, I don't watch commercial TV, but I still have to pay for it.
spendorman
01-09-2016, 11:05
I thought that if you own a TV, you have the pay the license fee (even if you don't watch BBC channels)? I've got Sky which is expensive enough as it is but I watch loads of TV shows and films on there so I'm getting something out of it. I don't watch BBC at all yet I'm still paying the license because I own a TV and receive the channel.
They need to scrap the license and just make the BBC channels pay-per-view subscription. They won't though, because they would lose a fortune as there are many people paying the fee that shouldn't be doing so and they'd lose this revenue stream.
I believe it was, you needed to have a TV licence if you watched any live TV. One could own a TV set and not use it, that would be OK.
Now, one needs a TV licence if one watches any live TV or Iplayer etc.
walpurgis
01-09-2016, 11:15
I believe it was, you needed to have a TV licence if you watched any live TV. One could own a TV set and not use it, that would be OK.
Now, one needs a TV licence if one watches any live TV or Iplayer etc.
The term 'by the knackers' springs to mind.
Yes the TV licence is a licence to receive broadcasts at your home address. That is why the number of TVs you own doesn't matter, but if you use one in say a caravan, away from your home address, you need a separate and additional licence.
If you possess equipment capable of receiving broadcast television, you need a licence, regardless of whether you use it or not.
What the BBC have done is to close the loophole which allowed viewing not at the the time of transmission, i.e. by recording it on a hard-disk, video recorder etc. to watch at a later time.
I thought they were charging for iplayer, but its just to stop non licence payers getting it. I still think the licence is a farce in the 21st century. They should be standing on their own feet, as they are now lackies to the govt, as well as putting on crap. I basically never watch it or itv for rhat matter but need to give them money for nothing
Whilst I agree with you about the licence, I don't see how they can be lackeys of a tory government when the BBC are lefties to a man.
Broadcast television is an anachronism that will die out along with the older generations. Youngsters are not in the habit of watching it in the way we who grew up with the 3 channels are. The old 'what's on telly tonight? ' routine. They just stream what they want, when they want it.
spendorman
01-09-2016, 11:27
" If you possess equipment capable of receiving broadcast television, you need a licence, regardless of whether you use it or not."
Barry, I don't think the above statement is correct, unless they have just changed the rules. The offence was watching TV without a license, not owning a TV.
If your statement is correct, all computers connected to the internet need a TV licence, because they are capable of receiving TV.
Correct, you can own as much gear as you want; the offence is watching television broadcasts without a licence, not posessing the equipment.
spendorman
01-09-2016, 11:31
Just had a chuckle, I don't watch TV, but many years ago I was involved with the development of the LNB's (Low Noise Block) for both Sky and BSB.
" If you possess equipment capable of receiving broadcast television, you need a licence, regardless of whether you use it or not."
Barry, I don't think the above statement is correct, unless they have just changed the rules. The offence was watching TV without a license, not owning a TV.
If your statement is correct, all computers connected to the internet needs TV licence because they are capable of receiving TV.
That's the point of the change in legislation.
If you own a TV capable of receiving broadcast TV (that is, connected to an aerial - either roof-top or set-top), you could watch TV without possessing a licence. How would the TV licencing authority know you are not watching TV?
They will know if you are watching I-player.
They don't know if you are watching free to air broadcasts which is why the TV detector van scam was invented, so they could kid you on that they do.
spendorman
01-09-2016, 11:57
I've just looked at the TV licensing site and even though I have a TV (not used) and computer connected to the internet, I don't watch TV and don't need a license.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one
They will know if you are watching I-player.
They don't know if you are watching free to air broadcasts which is why the TV detector van scam was invented, so they could kid you on that they do.
The detector vans would have had the resolution to detect if a TV(s) was in operation and connected to a roof top aerial. But if the aerial was part of a cluster of aerials, say on a chimney stack shared by semi-detached houses, the detector van would not be able to distinguish which household was watching TV, or even both.
The detector vans would have had the resolution to detect if a TV(s) was in operation and connected to a roof top aerial. But if the aerial was part of a cluster of aerials, say on a chimney stack shared by semi-detached houses, the detector van would not be able to distinguish which household was watching TV, or even both.
Indeed - in fact the vans were just rentals with livery stuck on them, they didn't contain any electronics at all (although mock-ups with loads of gubbins inside were photographed and filmed for propoganda purposes).
Indeed - in fact the vans were just rentals with livery stuck on them, they didn't contain any electronics at all (although mock-ups with loads of gubbins inside were photographed and filmed for propoganda purposes).
Whilst I'm sure that was true, well believable anyway, the vans would have had to have a steerable antenna mounted on the roof of the van; so not just a rented van with 'BBC' written on the side. What these van did (or were supposed to do), was to detect the linebase oscillation of the TV that would be re-radiated from the aerial.
Not that reliable in practice, so they vans would just go down the road, with the driver or his assistant looking for the TV 'glow' and checking them off against a list of licence holders.
Pretty much, yes. 99% of vans were just kid on..they did have a couple i believe that could to a point know. It was mostly court back bluster and inquisition. Court almost always backed bbc even with little evidence
spendorman
01-09-2016, 13:29
This bit of information just came through the letterbox with yet another invitation for me to buy a TV license.
1790817909
They love to pressurise folk. Bloody bureaucracy.
They need the extra revenue as the payments they receive for promoting the EU to the British people will be stopping soon. That turned out to be money down the drain!
spendorman
01-09-2016, 15:32
They love to pressurise folk. Bloody bureaucracy.
It's more like bullying and harassment. I suspect that it might even be ruled illegal at some point.
They should clearly state:
"If you don't watch TV you don't need a license, and you have no need to have anything to do with our company."
spendorman
01-09-2016, 16:26
This might be helpful:
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/you-only-need-a-bbc-tv-licence-if-you-watch-or-record-tv-as-its-being-broadcast-or-use-bbc-iplayer-if-you-only-use-other-catch-up-sites-you-dont-need-one/
Arkless Electronics
01-09-2016, 17:08
Well it seems they have managed to block Tor and most VPN's.... I'm working/waiting on a solution....
Whilst I agree with you about the licence, I don't see how they can be lackeys of a tory government when the BBC are lefties to a man.
Broadcast television is an anachronism that will die out along with the older generations. Youngsters are not in the habit of watching it in the way we who grew up with the 3 channels are. The old 'what's on telly tonight? ' routine. They just stream what they want, when they want it.
Too true. That seemingly applies to the Canadian version as well.
Not surprisingly as it's a BBC clone. Happily the Politicos reduce their annual subsidy/handout every few years.
Fortunately there never was a silly TV license tax. It would have inspired rebellion.
Most younger people, best I can see, are leaving TV broadcasting viewing entirely. Even Cable subscriptions are reducing.
Oldsters are watching the Public Broadcast networks.. mostly.
Odd given that the CBC was intended/designed as a public broadcaster, but has Clearly strayed :-)
Beaurocrats at their best.
The problem they have here is they have to make a load of shite since that is what lot of people want and if they didn't make it those people would start complaining about paying for something they never watch in the same way the rest of us do now. Trouble is there are lots more of them than there are of us so the BBC are obliged to pander to them.
Even their factual programmes seem to be aimed at an audience of not so bright ten year olds. Nothing is taken for granted, everything has to be explained. A program about the planets will take five minutes to explain that they orbit around the Sun before they even get on to anything else.
Arkless Electronics
01-09-2016, 17:27
They need the extra revenue as the payments they receive for promoting the EU to the British people will be stopping soon. That turned out to be money down the drain!
They deserve whatever happens for not being persuasive enough! If they can get a second referendum I'll let them of the hook :D
Interestingly their Charter forbids them to take money from foreign powers. You can refuse to pay on the grounds that they are in Breach and they won't take you to Court as they don't want a test case going against them.
Arkless Electronics
01-09-2016, 17:33
The problem they have here is they have to make a load of shite since that is what lot of people want and if they didn't make it those people would start complaining about paying for something they never watch in the same way the rest of us do now. Trouble is there are lots more of them than there are of us so the BBC are obliged to pander to them.
Even their factual programmes seem to be aimed at an audience of not so bright ten year olds. Nothing is taken for granted, everything has to be explained. A program about the planets will take five minutes to explain that they orbit around the Sun before they even get on to anything else.
Spot on! When I go on to Iplayer the list of the most popular programs is entirely populated by stuff I'd have to be paid substantially to watch and which only deepens my view that the general public, taken en masse, are moronic!
Fully agree on the factual stuff too and just as annoying is all the stupid graphics etc!!!
I've probably told this story before but years ago a mate of mine who has balls bigger than King Kong wrote to them claiming to be Walter Sisulu, then deputy head of the African National Congress. The letter advised them that he only used the house when visiting his sister, there was no television there, and would they please stop bothering him. He got a grovelling letter of apology back and never had to buy a licence.
He's a very wealthy man now which must say something...
walpurgis
01-09-2016, 18:11
Well it seems they have managed to block Tor and most VPN's.
Where did you get that from Jez?
I don't use Tor, but it's still available as far as I know. I do use SRWare Iron Browser though, which is built on the Tor framework. Nice quick, uncluttered browser.
A VPN would be impossible to block I'd have thought. How can they identify something with constantly changing identities, as most have.
Neil McCauley
02-09-2016, 08:23
The problem they have here is they have to make a load of shite since that is what lot of people want and if they didn't make it those people would start complaining about paying for something they never watch in the same way the rest of us do now. Trouble is there are lots more of them than there are of us so the BBC are obliged to pander to them.
Even their factual programmes seem to be aimed at an audience of not so bright ten year olds. Nothing is taken for granted, everything has to be explained. A program about the planets will take five minutes to explain that they orbit around the Sun before they even get on to anything else.
I agree 100% with the above. Well stated I feel and thank you.
Neil McCauley
02-09-2016, 08:30
I've probably told this story before but years ago a mate of mine who has balls bigger than King Kong wrote to them claiming to be Walter Sisulu, then deputy head of the African National Congress. The letter advised them that he only used the house when visiting his sister, there was no television there, and would they please stop bothering him. He got a grovelling letter of apology back and never had to buy a licence.
He's a very wealthy man now which must say something...
Indeed it does. The vast and I do mean vast majority of the seriously rich that I've encountered during direct face-to-face meetings - both inside and outside this industry - clearly, from my careful observations of their behaviours, utterances and general indifference to so many things indicates to me that they didn't become that wealthy - nor successful in hanging on to it - by being nice.
Indeed it does. The vast and I do mean vast majority of the seriously rich that I've encountered during direct face-to-face meetings - both inside and outside this industry - clearly, from my careful observations of their behaviours, utterances and general indifference to so many things indicates to me that they didn't become that wealthy - nor successful in hanging on to it - by being nice.
Actually he's a top bloke who I'd trust with my life. He was just never that keen on playing by the rules.
Actually he's a top bloke who I'd trust with my life. He was just never that keen on playing by the rules.
Alternatively he's a tightwad.
We've just acquired a 38" TV, free of charge from my daughter's partner, who's upgraded to a better set. We acquired a TV licence at the same time because we're boring, law-abiding people who can easily afford one and don't feel the need to whine on about the cost. Having said that, we've only watched a couple of programmes and have mostly used the TV to watch DVDs on.
Alternatively he's a tightwad.
He was dead broke at the time. I suspect that he does now pay for a license although I've not asked him.
We've just acquired a 38" TV, free of charge from my daughter's partner, who's upgraded to a better set. We acquired a TV licence at the same time because we're boring, law-abiding people who can easily afford one and don't feel the need to whine on about the cost. Having said that, we've only watched a couple of programmes and have mostly used the TV to watch DVDs on.
It's my view that paying for something also buys you the right to complain about the cost of it, for entertainment if nothing else.
He was dead broke at the time. I suspect that he does now pay for a license although I've not asked him.
I'll get the licensing bods to drop round and ask him.
It' my view that paying for something also buys you the right to complain about the cost of it, for entertainment if nothing else.
I've never watched much TV anyway. It was great when the girls were small, as they and my wife would watch all sorts of shite and I could listen to music for hours on end without feeling like I was being unsociable.
When we got the TV the other day, and I'd connected everything up and switched on, the first programme that was on was Coronation Street. I sat hypnotised for a few minutes, because the screen was about twice the size of our last TV, and the picture was so much clearer. Then I came to my senses and thought, 'it's fucking Coronation fucking Street!' and switched it off again.
Actually the whole thing, licence apart, has turned out to be a bit of a bargain. The set was free, and when I went into the Virgin Media shop (having learnt long ago that there's no point phoning or emailing the company), the bloke offered me the basic TV package, plus better broadband, plus a new modem/wifi router, for less than we'd previously been paying just for phone and broadband.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.