The BBC's Online Ripoff

[calius]

Its not "yet" but they are trying to crowbar it in.

The internet licence fee: Viewers who watch TV on computer could be charged from next year, hints minister

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1297660/The-internet-licence-fee-Viewers-watch-TV-charged-year-hints-minister.html

So the BBC lands on the internet and then you pay for it, license is for live signal ... so they simply set up a subscription service for valid license owners to access their data online ... you know, like every other website on the internet, that's how it works.

Viewers who watch television on their computer could be forced to pay[ the license fee as early as next year.

Nice bit of media wording, this actually should read:

Anyone on the internet in the UK who have the ability to view the BBC stream content and Iplayer page because its not secured with a login for actual license owners on their computer, or any technology that has access will also have the BBC try to forced them to pay the license fee as early as next year as a result of this.

Iplayer is a stream site not a live site, so they should simply set up a login for all license payers & leave streams online if they want and all live data is login only.

This is like having a shopping center/Mall and you access the entrance (IE: your ISP) and browse different shops, you pop in and view and leave, or you buy something. So the BBC open a "BBC shop" in the shopping center along side everyone else and then charge you a fee at the entrance becuase you might walk past their shop and look at the screens in the window.

Hmmmm . nice logic.

Some of the comments are good: "At the moment you want to watch the programmes but expect the rest of us to pay for them." .... I dont think they thought that through properly somehow, but then that's what they are expected to think, truly brainwashed thinking.

So what do UK folks think of this,? BTW I dont have TV or pay the stupid license either because I dont.

To US folk we have a ripp off BBC that force a license if you have TV that can watch thier live signal, so now they are trying to suggest those who dont pay it because they have no TV should now pay becuase they can view it online ... and as I say, its up to them to protect thier stream & live data via login for those who are and have paid for a license (IE: payed a fee to watch) I didn't ask them to go online with it.

Its like a music shop charging you on the door becuase you can hear the music played as you walk in. Such a draconian old system, and they are trying it on for the 21st century, I hope this gets shot down in flames.

Bottom line is whether or not I view their site I have to pay a license fee becuase they leave it open for anyone to view, do any other websites online do this? I think not. Bear in mind this covers anything that can view thier site or they allow to access their site (consoles, handhelds), talk about crowbar themselves into peoples pockets.

This was the reason they started all this "player" thing in the first place, try to get people used to it then drop in the fee later.

[Rocky]

I hadn't heard of this, but so long as a license fee is required to watch BBC programmes, personally I don't see the distinction whether it is on a TV screen or a computer monitor. If you want to watch BBC content you have to pay.

What do you mean by the brainwashing argument?

To US folk we have a ripp off BBC that force a license if you have TV that can watch thier live signal,

Look at it from the other side of the pond though, US folks are viewing content for free that UK folks legally have to pay for to view. It seems to me they are trying to correct that situation...?

[calius]

Look at it from the other side of the pond though, US folks are viewing content for free that UK folks legally have to pay for to view. It seems to me they are trying to correct that situation...?

This is the same point about that quote I posted above.

Who is it that "lets" it be viewed for free? Is it a non payer? or is it the BBC? So how can you defend a corporation that charges you as a license payer and then insults the license payer by letting anyone else view the content? Its the BBC that needs to sort it out internally and not slap a fee on people because there signals and data gets broadcast out of their control.

Then defend the corporations with a notion that becuase the BBC lets other see it, they should now pay? Thats the brainwashed argument, literally arguing FOR them when its the BBC ripping off license payers putting content up for anyone else to watch. Thats the idea, to get license payers calling for it to then justify others paying, when in actual fact its the BBC that need to protect the license payer.

I hadn't heard of this, but so long as a license fee is required to watch BBC programmes, personally I don't see the distinction whether it is on a TV screen or a computer monitor

Its "live" thats the license is for, not streamed, stream is post live broadcast hence the fact they cant charge you becuase "they" choose to show it open online as a post live stream without login. There is a large distinction.

I do not have a TV, I do not watch or want to watch BBC live, and I only check out some things on the Iplayer becuase the BBC placed it online to view for nothing (I never asked them and if it offends license payers they should complain to the BBC to have that content only viewable to them who are paying, and rightly so).

Does any other "website" online charge you outside of your ISP fee becuase they have put there content unprotected online that you can browse? <<< this is the point.

If you move and have no TV, nor any interest in watching BBC programmes at their website but have an "internet connection" your already swept into the net to have to pay the BBC, that's the point. No choice in the matter, your online you "could" watch, so pay. As I say its for them to add a login for online license payers so they reap the benefits, not a blanket payment to anyone who might possibly view their website. Online is a different way of working as apposed to a television becuase online = I can view anything via paying my ISP, the website owners need to protect the data. they are trying to condition people into "thinking" online = watching TV, its not.

Its like me saying to someone "well, amazon are now setting a up a monthly fee that you now need separate to ISP fee becuase they have a website where you can view their content, I use it and pay them so why should you not pay even if you dont look at it".

[Parabellum]

If the quality of the videos on the internet (in terms of video quality, audio quality, smooth streaming, etc) is equal to the TV broadcast, then I don't see the problem. If people who view the programming on their PC's are getting the same service, then they need to pay the same fee. Would I pay that kind of yearly fee to watch television on my computer? No. I much prefer the big TV, to small, streaming videos on a computer. I don't see the need for all the alarm over this.

[calius]

If the quality of the videos on the internet (in terms of video quality, audio quality, smooth streaming, etc) is equal to the TV broadcast, then I don't see the problem.

Because any other website with this content charge via login (that's your right as an account holder), of which you choose to sign up too that's how the web works and has always done. Currently its not equal and encoded and the license states any medium that can watch "live" broadcast of which nearly all of Iplayer is not, its post broadcast stream.

You pay tax and insurance on your car? So should passengers be charged too?

If people who view the programming on their PC's are getting the same service, then they need to pay the same fee.

On what websites do you know on the internet that show there content for free, start to charge you to view it without a login, which means anyone can see it even if they dont want too, so they must pay or be fined? They are crow barring payment from anyone online in the UK even if you do not want the service ... is anyone seeing this at all?

Should I now be forced to pay to youtube becuase they have tv shows on them that I can watch right now? Should I be forced to pay for Spotify becuase I can stream music through it right now without paying (but adverts) simply becuase they brought a service to the internet?

Its the principles of payment for content and choice to opt out that is the major point here. If any other company in the world suggested this people would go mad .. "pay me for I exist" .. I pay ISP fee then anything on top I agree to pay for via login to watch, I do not want to be forced into paying a company just because they exist "within" the internet.

Even news/media is asking for payment "in order to view" its content online, they are not saying to people becuase we are online and you can possibly view us then you need to pay either way to read our content. You dont see magazine stores charge you on the door becuase "PC magazine" deems it that you might read its content as you browse the shelves.

Ive never known the internet to be a TV exclusive BBC boys club before, and it shouldn't start now.

[Parabellum]

Because any other website with this content charge via login (that's your right as an account holder), of which you choose to sign up too that's how the web works and has always done. Currently its not equal and encoded and the license states any medium that can watch "live" broadcast of which nearly all of Iplayer is not, its post broadcast stream.

So, because internet viewers have always gotten a free ride, you think that they should continue to do so, simply because that's the status quo? Weak argument.

You pay tax and insurance on your car? So should passengers be charged too?

Your analogy is flawed. The 'car' in question is the BBC's programming. It's their right to charge for it, just as it would be my right to charge passengers to ride in my vehicle.

On what websites do you know on the internet that show there content for free, start to charge you to view it without a login, which means anyone can see it even if they dont want too, so they must pay or be fined? They are crow barring payment from anyone online in the UK even if you do not want the service ... is anyone seeing this at all?

First of all, nowhere does the article state that you'd be charged for viewing without a login. You're drawing a wildly unreasonable conclusion from statements that in no way support your position.

Should I now be forced to pay to youtube becuase they have tv shows on them that I can watch right now? Should I be forced to pay for Spotify becuase I can stream music through it right now without paying (but adverts) simply becuase they brought a service to the internet?

If the people who produce videos which are shown on Youtube decide that they'd like to charge, and if Youtube agrees, then I suppose that you'd have to pay. Really though, what difference does that make? You're grasping at straws.

Its the principles of payment for content and choice to opt out that is the major point here. If any other company in the world suggested this people would go mad .. "pay me for I exist" .. I pay ISP fee then anything on top I agree to pay for via login to watch, I do not want to be forced into paying a company just because they exist "within" the internet.

Once again, you're drawing a conclusion that isn't supported by what's said. Maybe you missed this: 'We are not going to introduce a PC licence fee" Or maybe you missed this: "But Mr Hunt said he would not be in favour of simply charging anyone who owned a computer in the same way that anyone who owns a TV has to pay the licence fee."

Even news/media is asking for payment "in order to view" its content online, they are not saying to people becuase we are online and you can possibly view us then you need to pay either way to read our content. You dont see magazine stores charge you on the door becuase "PC magazine" deems it that you might read its content as you browse the shelves.

No one is saying that you have to pay the BBC just to go to their website, either, Calius. To follow your (flawed) analogy though, how are magazines often packaged in book stores? They're often packaged in plastic wrap! They want you to purchase the material before you read it!

Ive never known the internet to be a TV exclusive BBC boys club before, and it shouldn't start now.

May I ask you a question? What about before the advent of live internet broadcast? Did viewers in the UK have to pay a yearly licensing fee to watch the BBC on their televisions back then? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that question.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Parabellum

[Rocky]

... is anyone seeing this at all?

Sorry mate, but with the greatest respect, I am not getting the drama at all. Pun totally intended.

[Parabellum]

... is anyone seeing this at all?

Sorry mate, but with the greatest respect, I am not getting the drama at all. Pun totally intended.

I almost snorted my drink, Rocky.

[zeealice]

if you ask me licenses should only be issued for dangeros weapons or animals. i've never know a tv to be dangerous, unless you chuck it at someone

[CrowmanUK]

I see your point, the beeb transmit their programs on the internet without securing it for licence holders only but because you can receive the internet then you must pay the fee whether you watch the channels or not. Bit like a busker in the subway charging 15 quid a show and because you walked past and were able to listen then you have to pay him the 15 quid regardless of whether you listen to it or not.

[Rocky]

Just like having a TV in your house then, you have to pay the licence fee whether you actually watch one of the BBC channels or not.

[dalliance]

The BBC shot themselves in the foot when they first introduced the IPlayer , from the start it should have been a subscription service , with those who pay for a TV licence fee receiving a password in order to access content and those who just wanted to watch online being charged in a manner similar to the way "ITunes" works. The BBC simply did not predict how popular watching "content " online was going to be when they first introduced the IPlayer, and the loss of revenue that would come with that popularity.

The figures speak for themselves , according to "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4641006.stm" in an article written before the IPlayer was introduced "The government revealed that the total television licence fee revenue collected by the BBC for 2000-1 to 2004-5 was more than £13bn." yet according to the BBC's 2008–2009 Annual Report this figure now stands at £3,493.8 million in licence fees collected from householders.

As usual it's all about the money .I do not agree with the BBC now in hindsight trying to introduce plans to charge a licence fee for their online program content.......closing the stable door after the horse has bolted springs to mind !!!

[Rocky]

The BBC shot themselves in the foot when they first introduced the IPlayer ,

Do you remember it was a Peer 2 Peer service to start with, that installed Kontiki on client PCs? I uninstalled it when I realised that, and they eventually changed that strategy. Not that the two were linked

[CrowmanUK]

I've no argument with having a licence if you've got a telly, but if you have a PC that has access to the internet why should you have to buy a tv licence because they dont secure their streaming services, it certainly wouldnt be fair if all the subscription sites made their sites accessible to everyone then mailed you asking for a monthly fee because you "could" access their sites. As Dalliance said, it should be a closed site and you get a password if you buy a tv licence.

[Parabellum]

Am I the only one who read in the article that they aren't introducing a license fee for PC's? Or has that changed?

[petsfed]

I hadn't heard of this, but so long as a license fee is required to watch BBC programmes, personally I don't see the distinction whether it is on a TV screen or a computer monitor. If you want to watch BBC content you have to pay.

What do you mean by the brainwashing argument?

To US folk we have a ripp off BBC that force a license if you have TV that can watch thier live signal,

Look at it from the other side of the pond though, US folks are viewing content for free that UK folks legally have to pay for to view. It seems to me they are trying to correct that situation...?

Great scot! I can watch Dr. Who on the BBC webpage now?! Every time I've tried in the past I got a "this programme cannot be streamed to your geographical location" error message. Us folks in the US aren't getting anything for free that you folks aren't either.

[CrowmanUK]

In the UK mate if theres a chance they can shoehorn some cash out of you they will and if they are "thinking" about something its a good bet that at some point it will be introduced.

Petsfed, I get the same errors when i've tried to watch clips from the office from the nbc site, only way I can see to get round is to use a proxy server. Just hope the BBC dont cotton on to that one or everybody on the planet will have to pay them a fee because they "could" view their content.

[Rocky]

I've no argument with having a licence if you've got a telly, but if you have a PC that has access to the internet why should you have to buy a tv licence because they dont secure their streaming services,

Isn't it exactly the same argument though, because when you buy a telly, BBC is not secured, but you have to pay for it whether you watch it or not. There's no difference there really, whether in principal it is right or wrong.

[calius]

So, because internet viewers have always gotten a free ride, you think that they should continue to do so, simply because that's the status quo? Weak argument.

Are you totally blind to what I am talking about here or are you deliberately missing the point? Re-read everything ive posted.

Your analogy is flawed. The 'car' in question is the BBC's programming. It's their right to charge for it, just as it would be my right to charge passengers to ride in my vehicle.

Its not thier right to charge for it, its there obligation to secure there data that licence payers are paying for and have a login system, so those who dont want to pay dont get the benefit of it, simple as that, pick the analogy apart how you will.

If the people who produce videos which are shown on Youtube decide that they'd like to charge, and if Youtube agrees, then I suppose that you'd have to pay. Really though, what difference does that make? You're grasping at straws.

The difference is the example para, its a website with streamed content, the BBC site is the exact same tech, you dont see youtube charging YOU to stream it & forced to do so becuase the site happens to be wide open to view, as you say you "choose" to pay a fee in the way that it works and every passing viewer doesn't, theirs no straws to grasp. My point is just because you can view youtube openly right now you should be forced to pay, im damn sure if they tried everyone would be up in arms.

Once again, you're drawing a conclusion that isn't supported by what's said. Maybe you missed this: 'We are not going to introduce a PC license fee" Or maybe you missed this: "But Mr Hunt said he would not be in favor of simply charging anyone who owned a computer in the same way that anyone who owns a TV has to pay the licence fee."

First of all going by your first quote you kind of suggest blanket license is justified which surprises me, IE "fee ride" .. its that hardline view im highlighting.

This is fine and im aware of that, if they stick to this then all will be well, but I have heard people to this day tell me "you need a license as you have a PC" and really have the whole thing mixed up.

If they stick to this and have a login then that's totally fine as ive already mentioned, and no more comment on the matter, im just waiting to see how they implement it, one thing that has been missed is the slant of the article and the title "suggestion". The reason I made this and posted is I know a lot of UK people are here and I wanted to see thier points on the matter, so far without them realising what you quoted a few openly agreed to the notion of a blanket license for a PC ... that surprised me. And even in other comments about "we pay so you should" (not here but on that news page comments and elsewhere) ... you can see where people other than me should really get that straight.

No one is saying that you have to pay the BBC just to go to their website, either, Calius.

You will be suprised poeple who think a blanket license seems to be the same level for a PC Para.

To follow your (flawed) analogy though, how are magazines often packaged in book stores? They're often packaged in plastic wrap! They want you to purchase the material before you read it!

Jesus Para, it was an example not a set in stone absolute fact.

May I ask you a question? What about before the advent of live internet broadcast? Did viewers in the UK have to pay a yearly licensing fee to watch the BBC on their televisions back then? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that question.

Umm, yes, clearly it was, but the internet as you well know isnt and wasn't a "TV" stream device when it started, nor is it now, its a website access point of everything and anything with sites that happen to have this content charging to view that content via login.

And as you have pointed out no need to worry as it wont be treated like a PC licence free (not set it stone) .. yet you still use the TV license model as some sort of level playing field later.

The point i'm making is, I know for a fact people really do see it as "BBC can be watched online YOU should pay the license like me" when its a completely different situation, only para really spotted the sections ref to the BBC not going down that route (and they better not). But notice the article starts with the notion thats the case, then quotes later something that's not quite so back and white, although those who are "all pay license no matter what" would read that and agree, its been proven here, and if the license payers called for it enough that would help justify the blanket license view, which is wrong.

Also whats wrong is that the Iplayer isn't the LIVE signal so a license is never needed for post-live footage. If they introduce Iplayer with full all channel live streams that opens it up to license to view, and then they should, and I hope they will, lock it and they need to revamp the licensing system to incorporate a login number per license user to view the content & a login and basic payment for "online only"viewers, so I hope they do that and do it properly.

I just wonder if they really did blanket the license on PC how many in the UK really would dispute it (as it clearly would be wrong) and how many TV licencers would also dispute it even though they dont benefit, proof in some ways was shown a little here, interesting.

@Petsfed: Its a UK only player, has never been any different and this is all about UK only license.

[Parabellum]

Are you totally blind to what I am talking about here or are you deliberately missing the point? Re-read everything ive posted.

I have read everything you're posting. What you're claiming isn't what the article said at all.

Its not thier right to charge for it, its there obligation to secure there data that licence payers are paying for and have a login system, so those who dont want to pay dont get the benefit of it, simple as that, pick the analogy apart how you will.

Actually, it is their right to charge people to view their product. Should people be charged a fee just because they own a computer? No. But at least twice in the article, the minister said that is not going to happen. At least twice. You're making much out of nothing, Calius.

The difference is the example para, its a website with streamed content, the BBC site is the exact same tech, you dont see youtube charging YOU to stream it & forced to do so becuase the site happens to be wide open to view, as you say you "choose" to pay a fee in the way that it works and every passing viewer doesn't, theirs no straws to grasp. My point is just because you can view youtube openly right now you should be forced to pay, im damn sure if they tried everyone would be up in arms.

I also don't see the BBC charging people either. Once again, the minister said that the British government would NOT be in favor of charging people a license fee just for owning a computer. How can you read the article and miss that?

First of all going by your first quote you kind of suggest blanket license is justified which surprises me, IE "fee ride" .. its that hardline view im highlighting.

This is fine and im aware of that, if they stick to this then all will be well, but I have heard people to this day tell me "you need a license as you have a PC" and really have the whole thing mixed up.

If they stick to this and have a login then that's totally fine as ive already mentioned, and no more comment on the matter, im just waiting to see how they implement it, one thing that has been missed is the slant of the article and the title "suggestion". The reason I made this and posted is I know a lot of UK people are here and I wanted to see thier points on the matter, so far without them realising what you quoted a few openly agreed to the notion of a blanket license for a PC ... that surprised me. And even in other comments about "we pay so you should" (not here but on that news page comments and elsewhere) ... you can see where people other than me should really get that straight.

I never said that they'd be justified in charging a blanket fee. It's just ... funny ... to me how you're complaining about the possibility of a blanket license for all PC owners in the UK, when the British gov't said that they aren't in favor of doing that. Securing the BBC site and making people register and pay in order to view their content would be appropriate, obviously. The British gov't must think so, too, since they said more than once in the same article that they don't want to do a blanket fee.

You will be suprised poeple who think a blanket license seems to be the same level for a PC Para.

This statement makes no sense to me.

To follow your (flawed) analogy though, how are magazines often packaged in book stores? They're often packaged in plastic wrap! They want you to purchase the material before you read it!

Jesus Para, it was an example not a set in stone absolute fact.

If you're going to use an example, then at least use an example that makes sense, and that actually illustrates your point.

And as you have pointed out no need to worry as it wont be treated like a PC licence free (not set it stone) .. yet you still use the TV license model as some sort of level playing field later.

Why must the TV license model be used as a level playing field, when by your own admission, the PC is not like the TV? You're saying two different things, Calius.

The point i'm making is, I know for a fact people really do see it as "BBC can be watched online YOU should pay the license like me" when its a completely different situation, only para really spotted the sections ref to the BBC not going down that route (and they better not). But notice the article starts with the notion thats the case, then quotes later something that's not quite so back and white, although those who are "all pay license no matter what" would read that and agree, its been proven here, and if the license payers called for it enough that would help justify the blanket license view, which is wrong.

The headline was written in such a manner as to generate hype. The goal, then, has been achieved. When one gets past the opinion of the writer, and reads what the British gov't actually has to say on the matter, it becomes clear that the title of the article is completely misleading.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Parabellum

[petsfed]

@Petsfed: Its a UK only player, has never been any different and this is all about UK only license.

I was just nitpicking something Rocky wrote.

I'm with you, creating a login and tracking system allows a much easier, much fairer payment system, and then nobody has to pay for a service they neither want nor need. Netflix does it. Hulu has a premium service for much the same reason. Even ESPN has an online system to allow you to watch shows, provided you can show that you've paid for it. There's really no reason why the BBC couldn't do that, unless the licensing goons don't really talk to the IT guys. If its a DRM move to ensure that no matter how you get BBC shows, you've paid for it, they may as well quit now, but that's a whole other argument.

Incidentally, do you guys have to pay a radio fee if you own a radio?

[Dick Splash]

Incidentally, do you guys have to pay a radio fee if you own a radio?

Yes, until 1971 if you had a radio but not a TV you paid for a radio licence . Today, all BBC radio is paid for from the licence fee except BBC World Service.

Unlike U.S. radio, apart from satellite radio, you can hear all BBC radio stations wherever you are in the U.K. Even offshore for a certain distance away. The commercial radio stations are local and so you lose the signal when driving.

DS