My Humax Forum

• Home
• LOGIN
• Register
• Search
on Amazon

My Humax Forum » Miscellaneous » Broadcast, Internet, Media

1. 

   JamesB
   

   special member
   Joined: Dec '13
   Posts: 1,717

   offline

   BBC Trust consultation finds strong public support for iPlayer loophole closure

   Respondents to a recent public consultation about the BBC's future were "strongly in favour" of closing the so-called iPlayer loophole, which allows viewers to watch BBC content without paying for it, according to the BBC Trust, which has released its findings today.

   A total of 11,583 people responded to the Tomorrow's BBC consultation from the BBC Trust. Responses came via Twitter, the official online form, by telephone and 'snail mail'.

   Closing the iPlayer loophole will be worth an estimated £100 million a year by 2021/2022, helping reduce the amount of cuts that the BBC will announce this spring. Already sporting coverage including F1 have fallen victim to the first round of cuts, caused by the BBC receiving less income than originally expected thanks to the loophole.
   [..]
   

   
   http://www.a516digital.com/2016/01/bbc-trust-consultation-finds-strong.html

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 15:26:56 #1 |
2. 

   Pollensa1946
   

   special member
   Joined: Sep '12
   Posts: 1,171

   offline

   The sensible approach would be to have a subscription model for iPlayer whereby licence payers get it for free (anywhere) and non-licence holders pay a sub. That would include making it available outside of the UK on a non-UK IP address. So for example I am a licence payer but am abroad regularly, I want it for free when abroad and on several devices. My son, who lives abroad, gets it via a UK addr obtained from a DNS service. He would probably be happy to pay the DNS service charge direct to the BBC by way of a sub. More revenue for the BBC all round. However, who can expect any sense from the BBC.

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 17:01:35 #2 |
3. 

   Faust
   

   special member
   Joined: Jun '13
   Posts: 1,598

   offline

   Pollensa1946 - 21 minutes ago  » 
   The sensible approach would be to have a subscription model for iPlayer whereby licence payers get it for free (anywhere) and non-licence holders pay a sub. That would include making it available outside of the UK on a non-UK IP address. So for example I am a licence payer but am abroad regularly, I want it for free when abroad and on several devices. My son, who lives abroad, gets it via a UK addr obtained from a DNS service. He would probably be happy to pay the DNS service charge direct to the BBC by way of a sub. More revenue for the BBC all round. However, who can expect any sense from the BBC.

   The only issue I see with your suggestion is that no one can really know how many people who currently watch it now for free would do so if they had to pay a subscription. If however it was subject to similar regulations as the current license fee then the BBC could be reasonable sure of their revenue stream.

   That would help them plan and finance future programming/ventures.

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 17:26:51 #3 |
4. 

   JamesB
   

   special member
   Joined: Dec '13
   Posts: 1,717

   offline

   Hall is trying to avoid any kind of sub, seeing it as the thin end of the kill-the-licence-fee wedge. Or so I read somewhere.

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 17:31:37 #4 |
5. 

   gomezz
   

   special member
   Joined: Mar '11
   Posts: 936

   offline

   The sensible approach would be to scrap the licence fee and all its associated expensive, bureaucratic collection and fraud detection machinery and fund PSB television from general taxation instead which would automatically mean that those that earn more, pay more and so be automatically fairer.

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 17:34:18 #5 |
6. 

   JamesB
   

   special member
   Joined: Dec '13
   Posts: 1,717

   offline

   gomezz - 7 minutes ago  » 
   The sensible approach would be to scrap the licence fee and all its associated expensive, bureaucratic collection and fraud detection machinery and fund PSB television from general taxation instead which would automatically mean that those that earn more, pay more and so be automatically fairer.

   +1

   But I'm betting the Tories government of any flavour will not, as the licence-fee charade lets them keep up the fiction that they don't interfere.

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 17:45:24 #6 |
7. 

   JamesB
   

   special member
   Joined: Dec '13
   Posts: 1,717

   offline

   C4 doesn't want the loophole to be closed:

   Channel 4 has hit out at plans to close the so-called “iPlayer loophole”, arguing that it would penalise other public service broadcasters.

   The government has proposed changing the current licence fee regulations, which only cover live TV viewing, to include on-demand TV such as the iPlayer.

   Channel 4 said that while there is scope to reform the licence fee system – C4 chairman Lord Burns is particularly keen on the BBC eventually morphing into a Sky-style pay-TV subscription service – it has “significant concerns” about the government’s plans.

   The broadcaster says the current proposals are inappropriate as they would also ensnare the catch-up TV services of other public service broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

   This would mean that if a household did not pay the BBC licence fee then commercial public service broadcasters would have to also block them from using services such as ITV Player, All4 and Demand 5.

   
   http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/29/bbc-iplayer-loophole-channel-4-tv-licence

   But why? The blocking could be confined to iPlayer.

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 18:09:45 #7 |
8. 

   Pollensa1946
   

   special member
   Joined: Sep '12
   Posts: 1,171

   offline

   gomezz - 1 hour ago  » 
   The sensible approach would be to scrap the licence fee and all its associated expensive, bureaucratic collection and fraud detection machinery and fund PSB television from general taxation instead which would automatically mean that those that earn more, pay more and so be automatically fairer.

   If we were starting from scratch I think it would be considered ridiculous that we pay a licence to watch TV and even more so that it should be supported out of general taxation. Whatever happened to a free market where you pay for what you want and if you don't want it you don't pay.

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 18:39:57 #8 |
9. 

   JamesB
   

   special member
   Joined: Dec '13
   Posts: 1,717

   offline

   The three options offered in the consultation were licence fee, "household levy" (= hypothecated tax), and licence fee topped up by sub.

   http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter_review/annex_c_funding.pdf

   | Thu 14 Jan 2016 19:46:27 #9 |
10. 

    Faust
    

    special member
    Joined: Jun '13
    Posts: 1,598

    offline

    Pollensa1946 - 4 hours ago  » 

    gomezz - 1 hour ago  » 
    The sensible approach would be to scrap the licence fee and all its associated expensive, bureaucratic collection and fraud detection machinery and fund PSB television from general taxation instead which would automatically mean that those that earn more, pay more and so be automatically fairer.

    If we were starting from scratch I think it would be considered ridiculous that we pay a licence to watch TV and even more so that it should be supported out of general taxation. Whatever happened to a free market where you pay for what you want and if you don't want it you don't pay.

    Quite simply there is television which is a true delight to watch and which also educates then there is commercial TV. With very few exceptions commercial TV can never match the sheer quality and breadth of subject as BBC documentaries. They are admired the world over.

    God save us all from the Tory mantra of free market ideology. I would be happy to pay a licence fee twice over for BBC output.

    If push comes to shove I doubt the commercial broadcasters would be over the moon either as there is little enough ad revenue to go round as it is.

    | Thu 14 Jan 2016 23:33:50 #10 |

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.