tv licence an iniquitous tax

[acumenman]

The people who buy the BBC from third parties do they need a TVlicence?

[acumenman]

I heard of people using Twitter to find out what was happening in Egypt as the news was useless.

[helena handbasket]

acumenman Wrote:

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

> The people who buy the BBC from third parties do

> they need a TVlicence?

Not that I've ever heard. The BBC police are not exactly going to show up at someone's door in Montreal or Washington I don't imagine.

There really is a market for them to sell the licenses to an international client base. Can't think of a reason they don't. Maybe someone else knows?

[mockney piers]

They sell individual programme broadcast rights to channels around the world, hence why iplayer is limited to

It's a very important revenue stream for the beeb.

[Michael Palaeologus]

At the moment the BBC coverage of the situation in Egypt is exemplary.

Unless is of course, if you dont like the views of the protestors being broadcast. At least one BBC news crew have been arrested by the secret police, interestingly just after they had interviewed a pro-Mubarak official.

After being taken away in hoods and handcuffs, there was a flurry of phone calls and they were released.

[helena handbasket]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> They sell individual programme broadcast rights to

> channels around the world, hence why iplayer is

> limited to

> It's a very important revenue stream for the beeb.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but here the programs they're selling are so old and repetitive that they aren't competing with iplayer. And we honestly don't get anything here that's less than a few years old. The property shows are still talking about the fool-proof/rising property market for Pete's sake. I don't think you could even find them on iplayer.

I think I pay about ?1 a month for our awful BBC Canada channel; would happily pay much more for a licence to access current programs. Or a charge per download fee, you could hold an account and just be charged like pay-per-view. They can make much more revenue this way, I think. Maybe they just haven't kept up with what is otherwise mainstream technology?

[louisiana]

acumenman Wrote:

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

> The people who buy the BBC from third parties do

> they need a TVlicence?

What they buy is access to the third party's internet server in the UK (a UK proxy server IP address).

The cost is not much less than for a UK TV licence.

How legal this is I have no idea. But it certainly seems to be widespread.

[Huguenot]

We had the BBC international team out here in Singapore before Christmas, and they confirmed they were developing an international edition of the iplayer.

Licensing is a major issue, many programmes are commissioned rather than made by the BBC: QI for example is made by talkback Thames, who also make things like the Apprentice and Escape to the Country for the BBC, whilst they do Britain's Got Talent for ITV.

International rights for programmes are a higher cost than just national ones, so it's difficult to justify this investment when funding is UK only.

They may be able to make money from selling access, but the question will be whether the administration and collection of the proceeds exceeds the additional licensing costs.

[helena handbasket]

Okay that makes sense.

I guess my point though is that people are accessing BBC property without the money going to the BBC, and therefore offsetting the costs of production (admittedly a drop in the bucket but.......)

I'm certain that those using third party servers are not paying anything to the BBC, the server providers are making this money. I have considered going this route but my paranoid husband thinks it will blow up our computer and invalidate our warranty:-$. But I really really miss QI!

[HAL9000]

This case may have repercussions for the BBC: Premier League TV football choice 'upheld' by EU advice

[helena handbasket]

This example might not even be relevant but my husband recently watched the ashes via an Australian network, which was fine but being a Brit he felt it wasn't the same. Does it make sense to block access to something others are providing anyway? I'm now in over my head in the discussion as I don't really know how this all works, but again it seems like the BBC could be generating income in places they are not. As I said previously, we would gladly pay the licensing fee and I don't think we're alone on that. The rates for the third party servers are quite high anyway.

[????]

Unlikely Helena as Sky hs the Ashes :))

[????]

anyway....

...the mash on Sky