Watching BBC iPlayer needs TV licence on 1 Sept

[Ms Blueberry]

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

[dirac]

Kinda agree that they need to do that. Still won't make me buy a license. I just won't watch BBC programs anymore.

[uncleglen]

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]

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....

[Alan Medic]

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?

[Nigello]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Rosetta]

Licences are free over age 75.

[red devil]

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...

[Rosetta]

It's not the only way the BBC makes money.

[red devil]

The Fee makes up about 75% of their income. It generates a fair proportion of it's other income from selling/licensing programmes,programme formats, spin-off/merchandising etc. And what paid for those programmes in the first place?...

[Blah Blah]

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?

[red devil]

BB...I wasn't suggesting that at all. You made a direct comparison that Netflix subscriptions are cheaper than the BBC Licence Fee. I explained why that was an unfair comparison to make. You weren't comparing like for like...

[Blah Blah]

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]

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.

[Alan Medic]

Other channels exist because of adverts. I've never watched Netflix or Amazon Prime but I guess they have radio stations as well and local TV news.....or maybe not. By the way Ross is on ITV not BBC.

[Blah Blah]

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]

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)?

[Blah Blah]

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.

[titch juicy]

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]

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]

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.