iPlayer repeat fees threaten BBC earthquake
Is it fair to ask people to pay a second time for media they've already paid for? Or is it fair to charge people for media they never use - and send them to prison if they decline to pay? Of these two injustices, which is the greater? Last week, PaidContent UK revealed a few details on plans by the BBC to charge for repeats …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Auntie is hardly giving it away
Here hear!
That is a business model which makes sense.
Keep the "unique way of funding" from the good, honest stiff upper lipped patriotic Blighty types so that good programming can be bankrolled up front, and allow Johnny Foreigner to cough up for desirable content after the fact.
Could do wonders for the UK trade figures too.
Re: And what about the original content creator?
Presume in the same way that the PRS organisation gives a royalty fee to Mozart and Schubert etc.
Re: Auntie is hardly giving it away
That's the first sensible suggestion I've seen on this thread. It already works in the magazine and newspaper industries where subscribers get free access to online archive, others pay as they go.
Roll on PVRs
This would be a substantial shift, and in many ways a tax on the less technically savvy - presently it is easy to catch up on iplayer and the other rival broadcaster online offerings. But equally you could use a PVR, or track down what you need on the internet. By moving to a pay as you consume model on iplayer, those users with PVRs - especially multi-tuner ones with large storage will find iplayer - and the forthcoming YouView plans less appealing - but those viewers who simply consume what there is, and are currently being encouraged to consume over iplayer will be the ones hardest hit.
Interesting that in the US they get Hulu and other solutions for free - and get some of the best programs where as we get 99% dross and will be asked to pay twice or more..
A funny side note - I was halfway through reading this when I guessed this must be an Andrew Orlowski article - I do enjoy his writing, even if his style does annoy some others
Re: Roll on PVRs
We don't have advertising on the BBC or iPlayer. That's not the same as the US - they make their money from subscriptions (much like the BBC) and advertising revenue/product placement/sponsorship on top.
PVRs do reduce the need for catch-up services but are going to ultimately be replaced by net-connected streaming services/subscription boxes. They fit a current need one sky and Virgin are pushing but when the publishers realise they can resell or license content using boxes that appear to behave in a similar way they'll push them to the majority instead.
Re: Roll on PVRs
PVRs that permit streaming (including HD) to any content consumer in the house.
Unfortunately I don't think such beasts exist unless you build it yourself.
Certainly the V+ and Tivo boxes do not permit streaming. Which is stupid as it means the content infringers provide a better service.
A note to broadcasters: I have a multitude of screens and content consumers. I pay you for the content - let me consume it.
A note to Virgin: Telling me your "Catch-up TV" service does not support my OS is cretinous in the extreme. All you do is link to iPlayer etc that work perfectly. And why (even on Windows) does your catch-up service not let me stream the other channels I have paid for?
Re: Roll on PVRs
Given we're talking about the BBC - the Freeview Humax HDR-T2 is quite capable as a DLNA server as well as DLNA client. Talks to my PS3 and VLC on Linux but seem to be issues getting decent windows PC clients up and running and some limitation on HD content but there are workarounds (http://hummy.tv/forum/threads/searching-for-the-perfect-dlna-client-windows.399/page-2)
Think the fact BBC offer (or did) iplayer as a paid service to non-uk areas a bit of an omission - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322604 and of course the relationship between BBC and BBC worldwide is a subject in its own right.
Of course if they do charge for iplayer I'll get a nice big external HDD for the Hummy. I would also complain more about the audio mess up where it pretends it is sending 5.1 stereo on the PS3 messing up anyone using a AV amp (note to the BBC - a response would be nice). Every other video app I've used on the PS3 gets it right although turning off the PS3 audio functions to force stereo could be easier too.
I'll happily pay for
Horizon
and er...
The problem is how much. Will Eastenders be cheaper because of the larger audience and will I have to pay more to watch a show with a smaller audience
Re: I'll happily pay for
I'd only pay for Horizon if they start putting in some actual science and not padding a half hour program to an hour by filling it with fluff and re-stating everything or dumbing it all down to a level my cat could understand.
Oh, and if they put the old theme tune back : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6PJ0IHcXH0
Re: I'll happily pay for
You should take a look at BBC 4 - some absolutely cracking science documentaries.
Re: I'll happily pay for
I see some of them on iPlayer. I have to say that 'Orbit' is fairly bad though I think that's Beeb 2
Hmm
Sky and Virgin seem to be doing alright with the bundled approach?
Re: Hmm
Indeed.
Perhaps it works because it's voluntary, and they bundle in utilities.
No room for the discussion in my piece, but I see no reason the BBC Media Company could not also offer telephony and broadband, in exchange for a smaller (or no) license fee. It's discrimination not to allow it to do so.
Re: Hmm
Andrew: surely the problem with the BBC (or parts of the BBC) moving towards one of the more commercial models is that the institution is them on the slippery slope to becoming A. N. Other content/service provider. In the current political climate that route may ultimately lead to wholesale privatisation of the BBC.
Instead the BBC needs to grow a pair and push itself as the excellent public service that it is. We can all find things that we detest about the BBC, whether it is crap shows on BBC 3, Jonathan Ross's (ex-)salary or the occasional office full of Nathan Barleys, but when you look at what the BBC provides in total and how much these services are used by people in Britain and beyond it is not only astonishingly good value it is also widely accessible. Even on a crude TV comparison with the likes of Sky and Virgin Media the BBC wins hands-down on the content it provides at the license fee price point.
However Ian Bonham's suggestion is interesting - though not going to happen with the current generation of free market politicians squatting on both sides of parliament. Hey-ho!
Re: Hmm
For those old enough to remember, at the time of BT's privatisation it offered to fibre-up the UK out of its own pocket if Thatcher would let it become a content provider - she refused, perhaps because US cable companies were contributing more to Tory funds.
Repeats
Are they repeats if you didn't watch them when aired? I don't use iPlayer to watch something again, I use it to watch things I missed or couldn't record as I was recording something else.
Should I be charged to watch the same programs as someone else just because I can't watch them at the exact moment the BBC chooses?
I'd have no problem with them charging to watch whole series at a later date but not for the last 7 days schedule.
Re: Repeats
not sure how they'd do it, but how about, first view on iPlayer, free, for those (license payers) that missed the broadcast. subsequent views pay-to-view, or pay for series link etc, but also make content that has been paid for available to that user indefinitely.
I would not be happy being told that not only do I have to pay to watch something again, but that should I want to watch it a third (forth, fifth...) time, that I will have to pay again (and again, and again.....)
Linking the Two
Why they can't come up with some method that if you want to use both (watch TV and then use the IPlayer) that you have some kind of online account that you sign in with and pay your TV Licence through it and it allows you to use the IPlayer without having to do PAYG
Then for those that don't own a TV they could be charged with a PAYG model. I know the freetards wont like this but for those of us that do pay our licence, it saves us having to pay twice.
Personally I don't mind paying for a licence as it give me access to TV and Radio that doesn't have adverts (and programs that can then use up the full 60 minutes, rather than skip the ads and try to fit a story into 40 minutes) - yes there is a lot of rubbish but you have to cater for everyone
Here's craaaazzzyyy idea.
Free for people that own a TV license (you create an account using the license details), with a restrcition on number of concurrent connects for that account.
Everyone else in the world pays.
Now hows that for a wild and outrageous idea!
Re: Here's craaaazzzyyy idea.
For my electricity supply I pay a standing charge plus a price for what I actually use. Various combinations of standing charge and meter rates are available.
The BBC could do the same: it would look somewhat like your proposal.
Re: Here's craaaazzzyyy idea.
Plus they could save money on not having to create alternate edits for overseas. (E.g. Top Gear on BBC America is 1 hour with commercials, meaning whole chunks of the show have to be taken out to accomodate them, and if you want to see the show as originally aired in the UK legally, you have to wait for the DVDs.)
False Dichotomy
There is no either / or choice of giving content away free to non-license payers pay versus making license payers pay again: it would be trivially easy to make make the service free to license payers and chargeable to non-payers.
As for the cost of the Beeb: it's a cheap as chips. A fraction of the cost of Sky or Virgin and you get actual programs continually rather than a stream of adverts with occassional program breaks.
" a constitutional obligation to give it all away"
Well that and the £2BN+ license tax/fee it receives every year, yes.
You don't **HAVE** to buy that Dad's Army DVD, that, at least you have a choice in.
BBC1 is just unwatchable for the most part these days with Bellenders and Celebrity Domino toppling, etc. BBC2 has Horizon, Top Gear. BBC3 is more promising as is BBC4 but really. Four channels? Sack the repeats, cut out the bullshit and put everything into BBC1 and BBC2 and maybe they'd be worth 1/2 the license fee.
If I contrast non-BBC content watched with BBC content and work it out pro-rata vs my SKY subs then SKY looks like great value by comparison, even if I 'forget' to subtract the ADSL and phone first and SKY costs me 4x the BBC tax per month and I can choose not to have it if I want. I still need the TV for the PS3 and XBOX so not like that can be bunged (42" HMDI tunerless monitors are not cheap).
If they intend to charge for iPlayer it better be outside the UK only. I'm already paying for it and all its content. Surely they could have a £5/month sub to non-UK IP addresses instead, there's revenue in that.
Re: " a constitutional obligation to give it all away"
Dont forget that for Sky or Virgin you have to have a tv license because they carry the BBC channels
Re: " a constitutional obligation to give it all away"
"I still need the TV for the PS3 and XBOX so not like that can be bunged (42" HMDI tunerless monitors are not cheap)."
That statement implies you have fallen for the TVL snot-o-gram lies.....
You DO NOT need a TVL simply because you own a device capable of receiving TV broadcasts (or even one tuned into receive them***), you ONLY require it to use that equipment to receive / record those broadcasts AS THEY ARE BEING TRANSMITTED...
***some devices will not allow you to use them until the setup / tuning scan has been performed, or you may have tuned the device whilst licensed and subsequently decided you no longer want to "receive / record broadcasts AS THEY ARE BEING TRANSMITTED" and so cancelled your TVL, however there is NO requirement to "de-tune" your equipment (although doing so is a way to demonstrate "compliance")
Re: " a constitutional obligation to give it all away"
You need a license to watch any broadcast TV, i.e. Sky1, UK Living, ESPN, not just because Sky and Virgin carry the BBC channels. Don't believe what Alf Garnett (if you're old enough to remember) used to say about not needing a licence if you only watch ITV.
Re: " a constitutional obligation to give it all away"
Actually you need a licence for Sky or Virgin because it's live TV. The BBC would get their money whether Sky or Virgin carry BBC channels or not.
People have faced fines and even prison for not paying their licence fee. I don't know of any other company that can have a person fined or imprisoned for not paying when that person has not even used the company's product. It doesn't seem entirely fair.
Another argument
As the BBC is supposedly owned/kept in trust for licence fee payers, don't we already own the content?
This would drive me...
...to finally buy a digital PVR device.
The programs I want to watch from the beeb are rarely on at a time that is convenient for me, and so iPlayer is my method of choice for first time, rather than repeat viewing. If I have to pay per view for this, I would rather shell out a one-off fee for a device that would give the addtional benefit of covering all channels.
And what about devices? Pay per view via iOS devices would surely attract the 30% cut to Apple, and if via Android Market Place / Google Play would surely need to be paid via the google payment system, as detailed elsewhere in this organ.
Microsoft points to buy them on xbox? PS Wallet for the PS3/Vita?
I don't think this has really been thought through....
One-off or forever?
For me it rather depends on what you get for your payment. If it's a license to watch the purchased programme whenever you want with the BBC cloud-hosting it then it make some sense (the Blinkbox-type model, basically buying a virtual DVD that you can stream wherever and whenever you like).
But if it's pay £0.89 to watch a single episode of Top Gear once (the hotel pay-TV model) then it sucks for the reasons stated that you're paying for something twice for those who've already been mugged for the license fee (and those who've never heard of Dave and can't wait a bit for it to come around again).
i'm happy to pay a license fee...
Since on average there is enough good TV on the BBC to warrant it for my viewing, or should I say my Sons viewing!
But I would like full access to the BBC Archive for the license fee!
but why don't they open it up to non-uk subscribers too, would help reduce the pressure on the UK payers!
Is Andrew going soft?
Allowing comments on an article again - so soon after the previous one?
Anyway, I liked the exploration in the article of the various questions to answer. I suspect that most people would be happy with a middle ground, where the licence fee covers live broadcasts and a catch up service via iPlayer (programme are available for 2 weeks after broadcast for example - yes I know this would differ depending on the ownership of the programme). The Beeb could choose to have some of their flagship programme available for much longer, or have an archive pick available every month, but then have some 'premium' content available to pay for - a red dwarf series for example.
I suspect if they label things properly (e.g. BBC owned content, 3rd Party Licenced content) so that educates the general punter about what the Beeb do and don't own and why they may be asked to pay for some things and not others, it wouldn't be a bad compromise.
Oh, and I happily pay my licence fee - Radio 4 is worth the cash alone.
I'd pay for this
or rather, I'd pay for PAYG access to the BBC's archive.
The current iPlayer "catch-up" model is fine (from a consumer PoV) and doesn't need updating; shows vanish a week or so after they've finished airing and go into that magical archive. Once there, asking for a small fee to watch anything they've got stashed away seems like a bargain to me.
Hmmmm
Well I do pay the licence and sometimes wonder if it is worth it. But then we do get as you mention Sherlock, we did get Hustle, Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes, and Doctor Who.
With non dramas including Top Gear and Horizon I suppose the BBC is still worth having.
Charging for older IPlayer stuff seems a good idea but not the first week.
However I wonder if the switch over fund can be used for the Formula 1 fans to pay for their Astra 1 additions to get RTL?
Well
*Assuming we keep the license fee, anyone who pays it should not be charged. Period.
Anyone else, including those overseas, should be asked to pay a reasonable sum.
*Should we keep the license fee at all? Difficult question.
Charge us for content? No problem, but if you are, you've got to drop the license fee altogether.
You don't buy a CD and then everytime you want to listen to it again, you buy it again. The model suggested is stupid, all it will do is upset the license payer. I am very close to cancelling my TV license and will just watch BBC on iplayer. If the programs aren't available or cost, I'll use download sites.
If enough people follow this example, cancel the license and only watch BBC on catch up, then the license would fail and the BBC would have to go commercial, which is no loss in my mind. I hate to think my money is going into making an episode of East Enders.
and how much will they have to charge to make up the 20 million pissed away on "the voice"
It's already paid for. They used the cash saved from destroying F1 and jumping in bed with $ky.
No commercial broadcaster would kill their most popular program to buy shit. It must be the unique way the BBC is funded. It means they can do whatever they want.
Sometimes to much choice is a bad thing
Pay as you go media is good for some but for the large majority a monthly fixed charge for a service will be cheaper - it also gives the media companies’ guarantied income to take risks and not have to worry that one expensive flop puts them out of business. Just look at the Computer Games industry or Film industry of late – remakes and clones abundant.
To all that thinks they should only pay for what they want to hear or watch and don’t want to subsidies others. Remember without those subsidies the media companies may never make that one great TV show, song or program.
What's the difference between iPlayer and repeats on BBC3/4?
If we supposed to be paying extra for the 'on-demandness' then people will just record the inevitable repeat on BBC3/4 and watch it when they can next get round to it. Still, at least it'll stop the ISPs complaining.
And if you have to pay extra for iPlayer/etc then there will be people can quite legitimately argue that they're opt-outing of the TV licence because they're not watching terrestrial telly and only watch the odd episode when they want on iPlayer/etc.
Auntie Beeb's opening a can of worms here.
One way or the other
I don't mind paying £140 a year (or whatever it is now) to watch BBC channels + iPlayer but they can't have it both ways.
If they start charging for iPlayer I will just stop using it. I'll either PVR things I want to watch or get hold of it by other means.
However if they reduced the license fee to about £50 a year and then put a 15 second advert before each iPlayer program, I wouldn't care.
Choice is the only option
Right now paying for the Beeb is forced on us - whether a household contains just one person who never watches any BBC content, or if the place houses half a dozen wage-earners who are glued to BBC1, in every room, all the time.
Isn't it about time there was an "opt out" or PPV - given there is so much more choice of content from so many different providers? Gone are the days when TV listings contained 2 columns: Channel 1 and Channel 9 (at least in the S.E it was Channel 9). Gone too, should be the equally archaic way of financing the state-owned channels.
It wouldn't be that easy to implement: given that we've on the verge of finishing a generational change in most people's TV technology from analog to digital and the costs would be high. But given the time the beeb and the government takes to decide anything; if they all started right away, they might be ready in 20 years when the public is willing to accept another upheaval in it's sitting-room services. Of course, if the independent channels can't survive the challenge of competing against a service that can broadcast its content for free (i.e. don't have to charge at the point of use, either monetarily a la Sky, or through inconveniencing its audience with advertisement breaks) then the whole question becomes moot,.
I have a better idea
How about making it so you enter your TV lic details and then gain access to iplayer. This is better than £1.89 for repeats that will be seen on Dave or the like 5 mins later and lets face it. Nobody will pay £1.89 for a repeat of a TV episode when they know down the line it will be repeated and or can go get the DVD cheaper of fleabay or the like. Now say 10p or the like and people will end up paying for repeats that they watch 2 minutes of as they just wasnted to see one clip of the show. They also wont care as it's 10p, unlike £1.89 which is a measurable percentage of a pint of ale. This as such gets mentaly noted, unlike a smaller amount of the spin on a fruit machine level.
That all said if they scrap the TV fee then £1.89 is palatable, still wouldn't use it but hey.
Re: I have a better idea
If they did that, they would not be able to ask the TV licence to be extended to the internet. That is the underlying plan. That is why iPlayer is free to use, they are just gathering data on use. Then the Government will grant them the broadband licence, to keep the extortion racket going.
On that day they will have to send me to jail 'cos i'll never give in to extortion.
£1.98 per episode.. so half the cost of a film rental.
No sale.
Pay as you go TV will only work if it works out about the same as we're paying now. I watch maybe 5 programmes a night, albeit maybe only 1 of those intentionally (*so* hard to find anything worth watching these days). They're saying that's £280 a month's worth of TV? F that. Divide the price by 10 and we'll talk.
loyalty
The beeb engenders loyalty for a couple of reasons:
I it doesn't require the viewers to watch ads. Many people find advertising to be an ugly, unsophisticated attempt to manipulate them.
2 it makes stuff that the other s would not, eg most of bbc4
Personally, I'll pay twice as much for those privileges, bit I'd rather do it all in one go. Paying the license fee is like owNing a big house, you can't be in all of it, but it's nice to have it.
Hmmm, tough one. I wouldn't fancy being hit with a monthly fee, and to a certain extent I wouldn't particularly like to pay a one-off fee for something I've already paid for.
However I could be tempted if they opened up the archives a bit, and allowed you to download (within the DRM framework of iPlayer Desktop) and also relaxed the time in which you could watch something.
At the moment I quite like the fact that you can stream and/or download, but the time constraints put on watching can be a bit annoying.
My issue...
is that the dear Old Beeb (and I Love the Beeb) has in the past years decided quantity over quality. 3 & 4, Radios 5,6,7. What is the reasoning for these? To drive more digital uptake, or as I've heard before "The BBC must compete in a digital arena".
The BBC has GOT to loose it's focus on having a diverse channel line up. They should pare back to 3 TV channels (1,2,24) and limit the number of radio stations. Radio 7 (now 4+ I think) is just re-hashing old Radio 4 drama and comedy. BBC 3 turns out very little of quality (Snog, Marry, Avoid?). BBC4 turns out some EXCELLENT material (Holy Flying Circus?), but nothing that couldn't be on BBC2 as it used to be.
If the Corporation was trimmed right back with it's on air line up, and just remained committed to delivering World beating quality television, everything else it generated could be made available on demand, with a PayG structure. Shows like Sherlock and Doctor Who for example are hugely impressive productions. They should be on broadcast TV, as to advertise the BBC production quality. Snog, Marry, Avoid could quite happily be on YouTube or iPlayer and available as a Pay on Demand (although I think it would soon prove unprofitable). Repeats of Sherlock can be on demand on Kangaroo (or whatever it's called now) and you pay for each showing or buy permanent repeat rights. This is no different to what movie studios do now, but the BBC brand attracts attention because of the 'generally' very high quality.
So in summing up, trim the broadcast TV & Radio line up right back, and push the money into quality. Deliver library content on demand on line, and I think the Beeb will be with for another Hundred years. KBO, and I give it 20 at the best.
This topic is closed for new posts.
