Watching ITV4 Le Tour coverage on a computer without a TV license, legally?

[Mr Larrington]

Simples, the beeb want to make it compulsory to pay the licence fee if you have the internet, you'll note that the beeb are recently on record with the BBC3 thing as saying that there is no future in broadcast, all TV will be internet based, so they will seek to have the government make ISP's responsible for collecting and forwarding the licence fee.

Help, nurse, quick!  My sides!

High-speed intertubes will have to become a lot more available before they can hope to make that stick.

[Si_Co]

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-03-02/the-bbc-needs-to-become-an-internet-pioneer-says-director-general

We’ve always said that the licence fee should be updated to reflect changing times. I welcome the Committee’s endorsement of our proposal to make people pay the licence fee even if they only watch catch-up television. The committee has suggested another route to modernising the licence fee – a universal household levy

A British creative beacon to the world. Providing a universal service for a universal fee. An internet-first BBC which belongs to everyone and where everyone belongs.

As you say Mr L, total carp of course, ATM

[rafletcher]

I subscribed to Eurosport Player for the Classics season.
It worked perfectly for me and it was money well spent.
I even got it to work on my TV (I have a TV license) via my lap-top.
That was more comfy than sitting around the desk top's monitor.

Me too - via an Apple TV. With a TV licence. And FWIW I think that a licence SHOULD be required for iPlayer. Use the content, pay the price. The French collect it as part of general taxation I believe - so in the UK added to council tax as a precept, like those for fire and police perhaps.

[Kim]

We’ve always said that the licence fee should be updated to reflect changing times. I welcome the Committee’s endorsement of our proposal to make people pay the licence fee even if they only watch catch-up television. The committee has suggested another route to modernising the licence fee – a universal household levy

I'm inclined to agree.

The government have pulled the BBC into its generation warfare by giving free TV licences to pensioners, and telling them to make up the shortfall by charging internet users (predominately young people) in some unspecified way.  Same old, same old.

Given that they've been put in that position, then it's hardly surprising that they'd argue for a farer, more future-proof system.  They're hardly going to argue for the "sell off the BBC" option.

[Dibdib]

I'd like to think there's some benefit to continue to have a state-funded, public service broadcaster rather than spinning it off into yet another commercial enterprise.

I'd like to see it rolled into general taxation too. If nothing else, it'd mean that we'd stop lining Crapita's pockets running a ridiculous "enforcement" racket, and also that those who can afford to can contribute more than those who can't rather than impoverished yoofs subsidising rich pensioners.

[contango]

I notice that the various changes currently being negotiated between the govt and the BBC (e.g BBC paying for over 75s licence fee) will probably allow them to require a TV licence for all iPlayer type services, not just live streaming.

Enjoy the free highlights while you can!

It would be interesting to see how they enforce it if they do, and what (if any) technical trickery they will use to stop people without a license from watching delayed services.

Simples, the beeb want to make it compulsory to pay the licence fee if you have the internet, you'll note that the beeb are recently on record with the BBC3 thing as saying that there is no future in broadcast, all TV will be internet based, so they will seek to have the government make ISP's responsible for collecting and forwarding the licence fee.

It will be big business that fights this I think, unless of course they're offered an exemption.

Me too - via an Apple TV. With a TV licence. And FWIW I think that a licence SHOULD be required for iPlayer. Use the content, pay the price. The French collect it as part of general taxation I believe - so in the UK added to council tax as a precept, like those for fire and police perhaps.

I'd like to think there's some benefit to continue to have a state-funded, public service broadcaster rather than spinning it off into yet another commercial enterprise.

I'd like to see it rolled into general taxation too. If nothing else, it'd mean that we'd stop lining Crapita's pockets running a ridiculous "enforcement" racket, and also that those who can afford to can contribute more than those who can't rather than impoverished yoofs subsidising rich pensioners.

All these are well and good but what of people from abroad who still have access to the interwebz and are totally out of reach of the grasping clutches of the BBC? I can see a cottage industry springing up where someone with a TV license and a fast internet connection runs a VPN so folks from overseas can stream British TV services for a modest fee.

Adding it to general taxation seems like a bad move - anyone might have need of the fire service, the police, the NHS etc but watching TV is totally voluntary. For what it's worth I'd rather the BBC either focus on programming that might be useful but not necessarily commercially successful, or become a commercial channel and find their own funding. As it stands it seems to want to compete for ratings while at the same time not having to compete for funding. If it wants public funding it needs to provide a public service. If it wants to produce entertainment shows (IIRC Strictly Come Dancing was mentioned in some discussion about the license fee), let it sell the shows to those who want to watch them just like other entertainment channels have to.

ETA: Not sure if the last paragraph shifts to a discussion for POBI. I don't use POBI, so if needs be I'll remove it.

[Auntie Helen]

Here in Germany the GEZ (TV licence) is compulsory, whether or not you have a TV. And it's 21€ ish per month. And German TV is pretty poor. I prefer the UK system where if you are a no-TV house then theoretically you don't pay.

[slope]

Enjoy the free highlights while you can!

I certainly am - watching them legally the following morning on ITVPlayer. But it doesn't seem 'right' to be able to do so for 'free' (as mentioned, I don't have a tele or license anymore, partly because I don't consider there is £145 worth of televisuals to watch in a whole year).

ETA: Not sure if the last paragraph shifts to a discussion for POBI. I don't use POBI, so if needs be I'll remove it.

What is or are POBI? Could only find People of the British Isles and Power Of Breath Institute

[mcshroom]

What is or are POBI? Could only find People of the British Isles and Power Of Breath Institute

This forum's very own Politics and Other Big Issues board: -
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?board=30.0

[slope]

What is or are POBI? Could only find People of the British Isles and Power Of Breath Institute

This forum's very own Politics and Other Big Issues board: -
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?board=30.0

Ahh! Enlightened Thank you. Modern acronyms always twerp me up and leave me stranded on the 'outside'

[tonycollinet]

I think the beeb is incredibly good value for money when you look at all the services that are included.

Even putting all that aside - ADVERTISEMENT FREE ENTERTAINMENT. Would be worth the license fee alone, and I'm sure that anyone who's tried to watch TV in USAnia would agree. (Popular programming roughly 50:50 adverts make it unwatchable for me.)

I suspect that the existence of the beeb is what protects us from a similar ratio even on the commercial channels.

[Poly Hive]

Sorry but NO. The BEEB is not good value at all. It is bloated to the point of in my view being a way of reducing unemployment.

In East mids we have no less than three or is it four so called local radio channels. One would be more than enough and it is so crowded that I have to retune R4 every ten minutes away from the local channels which interfere and take over.

The web site is a joke cumbersome in the extreme, and why oh why do they think they need all the channels?

Nah the BEEB has lost the plot and got so self important it is just not funny any more. Oh and talking of not funny have you listened to some of the so called comedy programs that they tell us so proudly makes R4 the "home of comedy"? Thank goodness for the off switch.

PH

[jsabine]

The BEEB is not good value at all.

Three quid a week?

No, less. Tightwad.

[Ham]

Sorry but NO. The BEEB is not good value at all. It is bloated to the point of in my view being a way of reducing unemployment.

In East mids we have no less than three or is it four so called local radio channels. One would be more than enough and it is so crowded that I have to retune R4 every ten minutes away from the local channels which interfere and take over.

The web site is a joke cumbersome in the extreme, and why oh why do they think they need all the channels?

Nah the BEEB has lost the plot and got so self important it is just not funny any more. Oh and talking of not funny have you listened to some of the so called comedy programs that they tell us so proudly makes R4 the "home of comedy"? Thank goodness for the off switch.

PH

I think you might just have lost touch with reality, there. If it isn't worth the cost to you, you don't need to pay it. There may well be subscription services that cost you less than £3 / week, apparently the Sun costs £2 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/06/sun-paying-subscribers-paywall, go for it.

For that £3, you get 4 national TV channels, at least 2 of which have impressive content. 6+ radio stations, innumerable local stations, a meteorological service and one of the most respected global news gathering services.

You may complain about their strategy, many do, but value? It beats what you hand out to the commercial channels in your shopping basket (and can't easily choose not to) into a cocked hat.

[Kim]

Channels are an anachronism, other than for people still willing to let someone else choose what they watch/listen to.  It's programmes that cost money, so counting the number of channels doesn't really mean anything.

Yes, they make a lot of output that I'm not interested in, but if they didn't they wouldn't be doing their job properly.

Their status as a news organisation is a matter of some debate.  They have a well-earned reputation - perhaps most recently for pioneering effective use of the Web as a news medium - but have been squandering it in recent years with government-friendly political output and mediocre science coverage.


(If you're having to re-tune your radio every ten minutes to keep listening to R4, then perhaps it's time you caught up with the 90s and used RDS, disabling the TA function on your set as required.)

[Ham]

(If you're having to re-tune your radio every ten minutes to keep listening to R4, then perhaps it's time you caught up with the 90s and used RDS, disabling the TA function on your set as required.)

...or DAB, but that may depend on signal. and if it is pirate stations intruding, you are basically screwed on FM

The significance of the number of channels is the total amount of time requiring scheduling, which is very significant. What you may have meant is that general entertainment channels are potentially an anachronism, with the future lying in the specialist sector (I suspect that any future recumbent channel may well have some disappointed experimenters).

[Poly Hive]

Ok so lets have a think about TV news versus radio news. As far as I can see if the cameras are not there it didn't happen.

It did though on radio as they phoned.

Go back to the last USA presidential election. How many crew did the beeb send over? I read 64 which may or may not be right and to what end? There is considerably more expertise on tap in the States on the matter than our front people no matter how well briefed and for that matter where did the briefings come from?

The wastage is incredible.

Back to the interference on the radio. I get this in my car all the time and no I am not paying to change it out as it works perfectly away from this area which points the finger at the local stations interfering with each other and R4.

No I cannot avoid the licence as we are a guest house and so a sitting target as we are for the Music licence which is another piece of crap.

PH

[Kim]

The significance of the number of channels is the total amount of time requiring scheduling, which is very significant.

Not really, they just repeat programmes (often really old ones) to fill the gaps.  It's more a case of broadcast slots no longer being a limiting factor.

The future is on-demand, whatever technology is used.  The BBC won't have a channel, or even a programme, for recumbent cycling enthusiasts.  But a BHPC podcast^[1] is certainly plausible, for example.

Music is now Spotify/iTunes/etc, though music radio as wallpaper will take forever to die.  The future of drama appears to be Netflix.

Traditional broadcasting will become more and more about news and sport.  And not so much the news, as the overlap with print media is almost complete - they're all just websites now.

I'm not sure where big-budget documentaries and other specialist programming (high-quality children's programmes, for example) fits in.  That's the sort of thing the BBC have always been world leaders in, and I'm not sure what will fill the gap.


_{[1] AKA "radio programme".}

[Ham]

The future is fragmentation, not necessarily "on demand"

The broadcasters' currency is ratings, narrowcast subscription.

For broadcast, there is a constant battle going on for the viewing audience's attention, there is only a certain level of repeat that the schedule can tolerate before it is reflected in viewing figures. Any program, be it news, game, current affairs, drama is subject to intense financial scrutiny, to ensure best value. There was a time years ago, when there was conspicuous waste in the system, that has largely disappeared, probably almost entirely¹. Now, the only high production value shows you see are those for which there is a ready re-sale market.

Scheduling TV economically is one of the hardest things any channel has to do.

And yes, I have run a TV channel (finance).
¹And we were amongst those responsible for bringing reality (no NOT THAT REALITY) to UK TV

[ian]

I dunno, I don't know why anyone still watches terrestrial or scheduled TV. It seems a labour, I can watch what I want, when I want. I think the obsession with ratings needs to die. The US in particular cancels endless programmes that would otherwise be successful (in download and disc sales) because it doesn't get the ratings and advertising dollars. That's an insane way to do business and unsustainable long term.

[Ham]

I dunno, I don't know why anyone still watches terrestrial or scheduled TV. It seems a labour, I can watch what I want, when I want. I think the obsession with ratings needs to die. The US in particular cancels endless programmes that would otherwise be successful (in download and disc sales) because it doesn't get the ratings and advertising dollars. That's an insane way to do business and unsustainable long term.

Successful or profitable? The two aren't necessarily synonymous. Generally if it is viable, it will be made. If not by a broadcast company then by an independent production company that may be able to bridge that particular gap.

In broad terms, the TV broadcaster may not be in a position to speculate, they have to fill x hours of programming for $y per hour, and achieve ratings success (whatever that might be in terms of their brief) If it doesn't fit the equation it won't get made.

[ian]

That was kind of my point. Broadcasters are stuck with a 'product' that fewer and fewer people will want. The have those hours to fill and make profitable. Hence programmes getting cancelled that would ordinarily be profitable, because they don't pull in broadcast ratings and advertisers only care about the number of eyes watching. It's a dying model.

[Kim]

And of course there's a lot more to the ratings game than quality (however you measure it) of the programme.  Many a perfectly good (in ratings terms) science fiction series has been killed off hlafway through a season by the broadcaster inexplicably deciding to schedule it against sportsball etc. or when the target demographic aren't around to watch TV.

Ratings don't account for people who don't watch live, even if they're watching the same adverts.

And as Ian says, there's money to be made selling programmes to viewers, rather than viewers to advertisers (especially with target demographics that are traditionally difficult to advertise to).  Though I suppose while they might appear to be the same industry from a consumer's point of view, they're completely different business models.


I'm never entirely sure where public service broadcasters fit into all that.  They certainly chase ratings like everyone else, and we've all noticed how BBC documentaries seem to be increasingly scripted with a view to being shown with adverts in other places.  It all feels a bit half-arsed.

[Ham]

Ratings don't account for people who don't watch live, even if they're watching the same adverts.

Please Miss! Miss! I know the answer to that one!

Phase-shift viewing has been part of the ratings calculation for years, since the days of the VCR (as was leaving the room to make a cup of tea). Historically, the ability to fast forward the ad on play was ignored, but of course with the various iPlayers, they are effectively hard coded.

The British system, developing as it did with such a strong emphasis on public service broadcasting created a unique environment where quality could flourish, those golden days are long gone along with the Auntie Knows Best syndrome. Ultimately PSB must justify itself in terms of ratings or they "fail". The beeb have made strenuous efforts to adjust to the new environment, some successful, some abject failures, but all in all they seem to be making a reasonable fist of it.

[Kim]

I stand corrected.