Jump to content

Watching BBC iPlayer needs TV licence on 1 Sept

Ms Blueberry

By Ms Blueberry
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ms Blueberry

Ms Blueberry

Posted
Posted

From 1 Sept, the TV Licence rules will change - expanded to include watching BBC iPlayer. Watching other catch-up (ie ITV) is not affecting and still will not need the licence.


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/01/bbc-iplayer-tv-licence-iplayer-loophole

uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted
whilst they are making stuff like The Secret Agent and The Night Manager I will still pay...BUT that quality work is being sidelined by the nonsense cookery, house-buying, and airhead celeb-fest expensive rubbish they mass produce to try and compete with the commercial channels unfortunately AND imo it is totally unnecessary for the BBC to compete with them while they are funded by us - the licence fee is like another tax really and in the main we are sitting ducks. Instead of trying to be all things to all people they should stick to what their hardcore audience wants
red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

The cookery/house-buying/celeb shows are not expensive to make at all, they're incredibly cheap compared to dramas.

Take A Place in the Country, one presenter and a small behind the scenes crew, take joe public to see 3 homes, and then a lot of editing in a post-production suite. Compare that to the cast and production costs of The Night Manager, simply no contest. The hardcore audience wants Pointless, and boy do they get it.

The BBC licence fee is still amazingly good value at just over ?12/month, far cheaper than alternative forms of entertainment....

Nigello

Nigello

Posted
Posted
The licence is not just for TV, remember. It is for online, radio (including R1, R4, World Service, 6Music). Just because you don't like cookery shows/bonnet-busters/news/radio drama doesn't mean you should dismiss the whole corporation as "not doing it for me".
Rosetta

Rosetta

Posted
Posted

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The licence is not just for TV, remember. It is

> for online, radio (including R1, R4, World

> Service, 6Music). Just because you don't like

> cookery shows/bonnet-busters/news/radio drama

> doesn't mean you should dismiss the whole

> corporation as "not doing it for me".


But, you don't need a licence to listen to any radio stations, even if they are BBC ones. They need to get a grip on the absurd amount of 'managerial' positions, bonuses, their chasing of ratings, and ridiculous salaries for their turns, just for starters.

dirac

dirac

Posted
Posted

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dirac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Kinda agree that they need to do that. Still

> won't

> > make me buy a license. I just won't watch BBC

> > programs anymore.

>

> Why don't I believe you?


No idea.


I'll literally not be able to once sept 1st comes in right? We don't have a tv in our house, and I'm not tech savvy enough anymore to download things so I don't see how I'd be able to (please enlighten me haha). Considering we watch everything on a 13" laptop, it's just not worth it.

Rosetta

Rosetta

Posted
Posted
I don't think anyone knows what will happen. Probably hoping that people will buy a licence anyway so they can truthfully answer yes to the question that pops up on the screen when you log into iPlayer. Unless you have to enter a pin, how can it be enforced?
Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted

People already watch BBC live on the net via proxy sites. Licensing for catch up and the net is just unenforceable.


Would also point out that services like Netflix are far cheaper than a TV licence and Netflix now distributes a lot of BBC drama and docs. Youtube also carries a lot of BBC programming as well.


Even with a pin, people can just share pins with friends/family who do have licences.


This has come about as a direct reuslt of the Government wanting to keep free licences for the over 65's, but now ordering the BBC themselves to pay for it. It costs around ?750m a year to provide those free licences. So the hope is that requiring licences for BBC catch up services will plug that cost.

red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Would also point out that services like Netflix

> are far cheaper than a TV licence and Netflix now

> distributes a lot of BBC drama and docs. Youtube

> also carries a lot of BBC programming as well.


Yes, but people need to stop seeing the BBC Licence Fee as a subscription/viewing fee, instead it's for the actual making of the programmes. No Licence Fee, no BBC programmes to watch on Netflix et al...

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
But other channels exist without charging the public, so to suggest the BBC can only exist because of a license fee is nonsense. The question therefore is one of freedom from corporate clients and mass markets. But it's hard to maintain public support when people like Jonathan Ross are paid millions every year. If a license fee frees the BBC from normal market forces, then how do they justify such huge salaries?
Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
Ah I understand. I guess I drew the comparison because I watch much more on Netflix than I do on the BBC and I think that is the problem. In a market place of subscriptions, people will increasingly resent paying for something they hardly watch because the law says they should. I think it is inevitable that the BBC model of funding will have to change.
Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted
Also, RD, you did that yourself when you said, "The BBC licence fee is still amazingly good value at just over ?12/month, far cheaper than alternative forms of entertainment." My first thought, on reading that, was that Netflix and Amazon Prime are both cheaper.
Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
I don't watch Ross so hadn't noticed he'd moved :D but he WAS being paid around ?5 million by the BBC, and there was a storm at the time over that. I think it reasonable to expect the BBC to not try and compete with the salaries of the commercial broadcasters. If the BBC loses household names as a result, then so what? They can create new ones. It's not as though there's a shortage of budding Actors, Presenters and the like.
titch juicy

titch juicy

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But other channels exist without charging the

> public, so to suggest the BBC can only exist

> because of a license fee is nonsense. The question

> therefore is one of freedom from corporate clients

> and mass markets. But it's hard to maintain public

> support when people like Jonathan Ross are paid

> millions every year. If a license fee frees the

> BBC from normal market forces, then how do they

> justify such huge salaries?


Which other channels exist without charging the public (or using advertising)?

titch juicy

titch juicy

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> C4, ITV, C5 do not charge viewers. That is perhaps

> why you added advertising to my orignal point when

> it's not relevant to that point, which was that a

> licence fee is not the only model for providing a

> broadcast channel.


Indeed. But, of course it's relevant. The only reason the BBC charge is because they don't have advertising.

red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, RD, you did that yourself when you said,

> "The BBC licence fee is still amazingly good value

> at just over ?12/month, far cheaper than

> alternative forms of entertainment." My first

> thought, on reading that, was that Netflix and

> Amazon Prime are both cheaper.


When I wrote that I actually had cinema and theatre in mind, alternative as in markedly different rather than a variation of the same thing, but I take your's and BB's point that it could've been read differently...

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted

titch juicy Wrote:


> Indeed. But, of course it's relevant. The only

> reason the BBC charge is because they don't have

> advertising.


The reason why the BBC have a Royal Charter and licence fee is because they were the first broadcaster. They can easily become a commercial broadcaster if the licence were taken away. My original comment was in reply to the idea that the BBC couldn't survive without the licence fee, when they obviously could survive under a commercial business model.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Oh David / Is David Lammy Toast?

      By malumbu · Posted

      The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Dogkennelhillbilly
      Dell Autos is closing tomorrow

      By Dogkennelhillbilly · Posted

      Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • HeadNun
      Oh David / Is David Lammy Toast?

      By HeadNun · Posted

      Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • malumbu
      The economy, a sensible debate in advance of the budget

      By malumbu · Posted

      @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...