TV licenses Vs The Internet

Post by **Dog Pants** » December 10th, 2008, 22:22

Interesting article I happened upon while exiting my email service;

http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article ... d=11745470

Should we pay a license fee for viewing BBC programmes live through iPlayer? I think I know what everyone here's (including mine) answer would be, but the article raised some interesting points nontheless. Anything capable of receiving a live broadcast requires a TV license. That, surely, would extend to the internet in this case. I'd like to see them try. More evidence, I think, of how outmoded the TV license is, despite bringing us wonders like Planet Earth that we may lose should licenses be abolished.

This summed it up for me:

The usually clueless drone from MSN wrote:All these developments sound fine, but a lot of the viewing options still revolve around our groaning broadband infrastructure, which requires a massive amount of investment to get it up to speed. A case in point is my BT Total Broadband service, which simply can’t deliver sufficient momentum to stream live TV. I couldn’t get a comment on what BT plans to do about it.

Yeah, that sounds like BT to me. I got a similar reaction myself when I criticised their infrastructure. I get the distinct impression, though, that the bloke who recieved my letter was leaning back in his chair giving me the vees as he read it. If only I could choose whether or not to provice my service to them;

A not well connected Dog Pants wrote:I'm sorry, but the British Government don't see protecting BT assets from terrorist attacks as profitable, so you'll just have to live with the letter bombs and shootings. Or not, as the case may be. Sorry, it's just business.

Post by **FatherJack** » December 10th, 2008, 23:02

To view the Sky On Demand stuff you need to register your customer number against your computer - I can't help thinking the BBC have missed a trick by not requiring you to submit your TV license details to do the same.

The TV license is effectively a tax on any equipment, be it a TV, VCR, PC TV-tuner, Satellite, Cable or Freeview box capable of recieving the BBC channels, regardless of whether you actually watch them or not. I remember the argument springing up when Sky first stared, and this was the official position.

I think you should pay for iPlayer, and I still think the beeb deserve the cash. They put out some shit, granted, but the stuff they do well, that no-one else can or dare do makes it worthwhile.

No other TV station in the fucking world is in the ludicrous position to be able to screen stuff they know won't make a profit, but will build respect. No fucking ADVERTS. Uninterrupted sport, films and documentaries without at least double the subscription cost. No strings or ties to some company that 'financed' the programme.

I bet people from other countries used to adverts every few seconds fucking love our TV and radio from the BBC, and that makes me happy and proud in itself.

Lateralus · Post by **Lateralus** » December 10th, 2008, 23:24

Haven't read the article as it's late and I'm tired, but I firmly believe that the licence fee is worth it. As Jack points out, having to register your licence to use the iPlayer is a good idea if they want to charge for it.

Also, although there is a lot of crap on TV, the overall standard at the BBC is far higher than most places, and for things such as their natural history programmes (all of them, ever) they're utterly unsurpassed. Without the licence fee, we wouldn't have those, and that would be rubbish.

Also I'm finding myself increasingly annoyed at commercial adverts, especially fucking perfume ones. I appreciate it's hard to sell a fragrance using visual media, but they're so fucking pretentious it drives me mad. Has anyone seen that one with Nicole Kidman which feels like it's an hour long? Somewhere in the world, some wanker probably feels proud for their involvement in making that.

Post by **Dog Pants** » December 10th, 2008, 23:25

While I agree with that on principle - that the license is used to further television in the form of excellent documentaries and suchlike that wouldn't necessarily turn a profit from the soap-opera watching proletariat - it doesn't quite stand up to the test of the real world. The decent stuff is few and far between, and is sold to TV syndicates all over the world. Surely profit could be made that way, or at least covering the cost of the thing. As far as advertisements go, it seems like a good thing because you're forced to pay the license fee anyway, but if ITV offered an advertisement free service of exactly the same programs for £11 a month would you buy it?

EDIT: Lat's subject of media influence on the disco board has given me more consideration - maybe I'd be happier about paying the license fee if I thought the BBC's reporting was objective. At least that way I could feel that the company I was forced to pay was working for the public, rather than another scaremongering TV tabloid.

Gunslinger42 · Post by **Gunslinger42** » December 10th, 2008, 23:36

Pretty much the only thing I watch on BBC any more is Top Gear, but god do I love the fact they don't do 10 minutes of show, 6 minutes of commercials, repeat until I stop watching the show on TV and sweep it on the internet so I can fucking watch it without 20 minutes of shit spliced in with it

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » December 10th, 2008, 23:54

TV and Radio Licence.

Worth it?

Yeap.

I like having no adverts (or only small non commercial ones), no interruptions in films etc.

Granted, there's some dross, but bbc3 is a great springboard for quite a bit more off the cuff items now (Boosh anyone?), Beeb2 is great as always, and occasionally I watch bbc4.

I think I'm also slowly falling in love with Radio 6 via iPlayer, good music on that station, and Colin Murray's Midweek Mobile Disco and Blackhole programs are great on Radio1.

Post by **Joose** » December 11th, 2008, 7:45

FatherJack wrote:To view the Sky On Demand stuff you need to register your customer number against your computer - I can't help thinking the BBC have missed a trick by not requiring you to submit your TV license details to do the same.

Sounds good in principle, until you start thinking about the practicalities. For example:

I have more than one computer in the house, and use iPlayer on both of them. If I buy a laptop, im likely to be regularly using iPlayer on three, and sometimes two of those will be simultaneous (me and the mrs watching different things). Does that mean I need to buy multiple licences? If not, what's to stop a bunch of people all sharing a licence, even if they don't live in the same house? If they somehow tie it down to one internet connection per licence, what happens when I go on a business trip and want to watch iPlayer in my hotel room? Finally, hands up who knows their licence number? I don't, and wouldn't know where to find it either.

I'm kinda mixed on the whole licence fee thing. On the one hand, I like the idea, for reasons that have already been stated here. On the other hand, they don't seem to actually be using the money like they should. No adverts? Less adverts, sure, but there's still a bunch of crap for BBC stuff between each program. Documentaries? Apart from the natural history stuff, the other channels seem to manage these too. Less crap for the masses? EastEnders? Weakest Link? Strictly come fucking dancing?

Also, what are these programs "that no-one else can or dare do"? People keep mentioning them, and I've got to be honest, ive no bloody idea what programs they are supposed to be. The only stuff I ever see on the bbc that *couldn't* or *wouldn't* be done elsewhere seems to be the stuff they *have* to do, and that no one watches.

Finally, am I the only one who doesn't really mind the adverts on British commercial telly? It may just be because I've experienced some foreign commercial telly where there's more advert than show, but its never really bothered me.

Post by **Dog Pants** » December 11th, 2008, 16:31

I don't particularly mind the adverts. If I did I expect I'd be able to remember which shows had them and which didn't. As it is, I can't.

Post by **FatherJack** » December 11th, 2008, 16:56

I hate adverts and I've observed foreign channels in horror at the massive amounts they seem to have, ours aren't nearly so bad, but some of the Discovery-type channels seem to be trying to emulate them and I don't like the way that will end up. The amount they have on the kid's channels - even for programmes aimed at very young kids should, I feel, be actually criminal.

I watch nothing live on a channel that has adverts if I can help it, it really bothers me, I have to be able to fast-forward past them, so I usually use the pause live TV for ten minutes or so before watching.

The programmes no-one else makes would be the ones other people have mentioned, the epic natural history ones, experimental comedies on 3, the arts programmes on 4, and kids programmes without american accents. I don't even mind Strictly - although I don't get a choice about watching it and wouldn't hold it up as a shining example - there's something delightfully madcap about the whole idea. Most stuff is shit though, but so is most of everything.

I don't know how the Sky internet-viewing stuff works - I did register my Dad's viewing card to watch the Colour of Magic on it and seem to remember this tied that single installation of the viewing software to that card. Not the ideal way of doing it - perhaps a usercode/password that the license owner sets up which can only be used on one IP (ie: your house's router OR your laptop) at a time would be better.

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » December 11th, 2008, 18:20

All I know was that trying to watch Return Of The Jedi the other weekend when I was at home fucked me right off on ITV, lots of adverts (I accept the 5 or 6 o'clock news) just destroyed all flow of the film.

Oddly enough, I think that's just ITV though, Channel 4 seem a lot better with adverts when it comes to films.

Post by **Joose** » December 11th, 2008, 19:04

FatherJack wrote:The programmes no-one else makes would be the ones other people have mentioned, the epic natural history ones, experimental comedies on 3, the arts programmes on 4, and kids programmes without american accents. I don't even mind Strictly - although I don't get a choice about watching it and wouldn't hold it up as a shining example - there's something delightfully madcap about the whole idea. Most stuff is shit though, but so is most of everything.

See, I think this might be my problem with the licence fee. I don't watch natural history documentaries (even the bbc's finest, which I will freely admit are awesome examples of their genre, bore the tits off me). I'm reasonably sure I've never watched bbc 4, as all their art programs strike me as horribly dry and dull (and its not like I don't have an interest in art. I've been on at least two holidays where 90% of the activities were gallery based, and most other holidays have at least one gallery trip in them). I don't watch kids programs, and I don't have kids. I would happily murder the person who came up with Strictly IN THE FACE.

As for the comedy, the only recent beeb comedy I can think of that I watched was Boosh. Yet I can think of several comedies on other channels that I watch on a regular basis.

So I guess my problem with it is that its all very well having this principle of them making things that no one else can/dare to, but the end result is a bunch of stuff I don't want to watch.

The idea of the licence fee and the beeb is great, but basically, I'm paying my license fee for QI and Top Gear. This doesn't seem like a very good deal to me.

Post by **HereComesPete** » December 11th, 2008, 19:32

I pretty much agree with everything Joose said.

My household watches tv constantly, it goes on at 7 in the morning off at 8.30, then back on at 3.30 when people arrive home again. It's then on until 1 in the morning.

But all I've paid for was the occasional glimpse of tv, possibly 15 minutes per week. I watch QI on the pc, I watch top gear on it. I rarely if ever watch anything else from the beeb. I'd be quite happy to pay a small fee for the iplayer instead of a licence fee.

I don't want adverts of any kind. I even hate adverts in the cinema, except for the pearl and dean advert music. I want to watch what I've paid for and nothing else. Even trailers in cinemas that last too long have me flexing my stranglers hands, even for films I know I'll enjoy.

As for reality tv? I could rant about it for hours. But long story short, it and anyone to do with the genre could all be stuck in a fire and I'd applaud the fire as a saviour of television.

Fear · Post by **Fear** » December 11th, 2008, 19:48

My problem with the TV license fee is the quality of what they produce/broadcast.

In principle it is fine, but I want the <s>popular</s> awesome new shows, not strictly come dancing and EastEnders. Where are the latest TV series? The big sports fixtures? Educational documentaries? BBC comedy has gone, I can't think of anything I want to watch that is on BBC.

Granted BBC does still do(did) nature well, but that's about it. Haven't they fired 80% of the people in that department this year anyway?

Radio is unbearable - I'd rather have nothing on that listen to the rubbish on there.

Quality not quantity BBC, please.

Oh and their news is too much opinion and too little fact. And left wing biased. I want that to be factual and unbiased (you can't have one without the other anyway I suppose)

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » December 11th, 2008, 20:07

As it's just sprung to mind, the beeb have got the rights to the F1 now, racing goodness with no adverts! Wooo!

cheeseandham · Post by **cheeseandham** » December 11th, 2008, 20:09

Most of it's already been said, but I'll add this.

You don't get a choice whether you have a TV license or not, if you have a TV receiving device you pay.
Doesn't matter if you just watch Dave, ITV and E4.
Doesn't matter if you don't have a TV at all sometimes (my sisters boyfriend didn't have a TV for years but was harrassed constantly by the licensing authorities)

At times I like the BBC, but I do expect a little more for our £4.3 billion. With £5 a month each going to BBC1 and BBC2 alone.