[speedwell68]

I had someone from Capita at the door on the 1st Sept trying to sell me a TV licence. Asking why she was there seeing as Capitas rights of access had been removed. Soon as I pulled my phone out she run up the street like an egg on legs. Ive repeatdly told Capita that I dont fund paedos, But its not sinking in. Ive kept all the letters, and photos When she returns again which she will, Im ringing the police as its classed as tresspassing. I spoke to Capita on the phone and they tried everything to get my information. The man on the phone decided to hang up when I asked him if played with himself whilst looking at pictures of his heroes, Jimmy Savile, Jonathan King, Stuart Hall, and the great Rolf Harris. (The song two little boys was an early warning sign, God knows what he did to those poor animals during BBCs Anmal Hospital, Come on kids, Join my kids club!!!!!)

Is there really any need to be so insulting? I don't just don't watch the BBC enough to warrant £145 a year. I like to binge watch stuff so that is why I stick to ripped discs or Netflix. I am expecting the letter, followed by a pointless conversation with a Capita call centre where they try make me pay because I could in theory still get the BBC as I have equipment that can. Which will end with me not paying and them leaving me be. After that I am expecting a bod at the door, who will have my rights explained to them and then have the door politely closed in their face. But I am not going to get upset about it or go out of my way to insult anyone else.

[zag]

Login needed from 2017

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229

[speedwell68]

Login needed from 2017

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229

It won't make a jot of difference.

[primaeval]

Login needed from 2017

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229

It won't make a jot of difference.

Can you tell us why?

[EDIT] I hoped you were talking about keeping the addon going. Now I believe you are just talking about keeping the License Fee man out of your house.

[speedwell68]

Login needed from 2017

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37477229

It won't make a jot of difference.

Can you tell us why?

[EDIT] I hoped you were talking about keeping the addon going. Now I believe you are just talking about keeping the License Fee man out of your house.

That is exactly what I mean. I am not saying I don't have a TV Licence. But that won't make people pay up. The BBC need to admit defeat and commercialise the iPlayer.

In the long term will it make a difference to the addon?

[primaeval]

It won't make a jot of difference.

Can you tell us why?

[EDIT] I hoped you were talking about keeping the addon going. Now I believe you are just talking about keeping the License Fee man out of your house.

That is exactly what I mean. I am not saying I don't have a TV Licence. But that won't make people pay up. The BBC need to admit defeat and commercialise the iPlayer.

In the long term will it make a difference to the addon?

If they commercialise iPlayer like Channel 4 we are screwed. No more iPlayer in Kodi.

[speedwell68]

Can you tell us why?

[EDIT] I hoped you were talking about keeping the addon going. Now I believe you are just talking about keeping the License Fee man out of your house.

That is exactly what I mean. I am not saying I don't have a TV Licence. But that won't make people pay up. The BBC need to admit defeat and commercialise the iPlayer.

In the long term will it make a difference to the addon?

If they commercialise iPlayer like Channel 4 we are screwed. No more iPlayer in Kodi.

Why?

ITV Player, UKTV Play and YouTube are all commercial and they have Kodi addons.

The fact remains that the BBC's funding model is out of date. It was devised in the late 1940s and does not take into account the changes in technology. I don't have traditional broadcast TV, I watch online only, yet I am expected to pay the same as a traditional broadcast viewer, for significantly less content. This is grossly unfair and does not represent value for money. Also the BBC enjoys a monopoly on TV and Radio in the UK and as it is funded by an almost mandatory tax it is ant-competitive too.

[primaeval]

That is exactly what I mean. I am not saying I don't have a TV Licence. But that won't make people pay up. The BBC need to admit defeat and commercialise the iPlayer.

In the long term will it make a difference to the addon?

If they commercialise iPlayer like Channel 4 we are screwed. No more iPlayer in Kodi.

Why?

ITV Player, UKTV Play and YouTube are all commercial and they have Kodi addons.

The fact remains that the BBC's funding model is out of date. It was devised in the late 1940s and does not take into account the changes in technology. I don't have traditional broadcast TV, I watch online only, yet I am expected to pay the same as a traditional broadcast viewer, for significantly less content. This is grossly unfair and does not represent value for money. Also the BBC enjoys a monopoly on TV and Radio in the UK and as it is funded by an almost mandatory tax it is ant-competitive too.

Channel 4 encryption stops it being able to be used as an addon.

Much of the BBC's output is thinly disguised propaganda. Just ask Adam Curtis.
I agree it really should be funded by general taxation like Canada.

[speedwell68]

I agree it really should be funded by general taxation like Canada.

This would be the dream scenario for us the end users.

[twelvebore]

I could well end up regretting getting into this, but whatever...

The fact remains that the BBC's funding model is out of date. It was devised in the late 1940s and does not take into account the changes in technology. I don't have traditional broadcast TV, I watch online only, yet I am expected to pay the same as a traditional broadcast viewer, for significantly less content.

Broadcast BBC TV cannot be viewed outside the UK because physics. (OK maybe Netherlands and Eire). Online, in theory, can be viewed anywhere.

The BBC has to buy a certain amount of its content from third-party producers. It has to because the government tells it it has to.

Does it buy worldwide rights? Or UK broadcast-only rights? Does the third-party sell the UK rights to the BBC and the rights elsewhere piece-meal to fourth parties in order to maximize its income? My guess would be yes. Am I wrong? In this model the BBC has to be very careful what access it grants to online viewers that it cannot guarantee are in the UK to content that it cannot guarantee is being viewed in the UK.

The flip-side of course is for BBC-originated content. In principle it can do with this what it wishes, but it loses money (in an opportunity cost sense) if it doesn't play the silly region-locked game as the rest of the media with this content.

Personally I wouldn't say this is a 1940s model, I'd say this is a 1980s model. Margery Thatch and all that.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not very happy with the value I get for online content from the BBC, but I don't see it as purely the fault of the BBC. They are a punch-bag and a puppet at the same time. Many of the voices calling for change have a vested interest.

This is grossly unfair and does not represent value for money. Also the BBC enjoys a monopoly on TV and Radio in the UK and as it is funded by an almost mandatory tax it is ant-competitive too.

I have to pay for commercial TV every time I visit the supermarket, regardless of whether I watch their content.

I have no choice. I regard this as an out-of-date funding model.

[speedwell68]

I could well end up regretting getting into this, but whatever...

The fact remains that the BBC's funding model is out of date. It was devised in the late 1940s and does not take into account the changes in technology. I don't have traditional broadcast TV, I watch online only, yet I am expected to pay the same as a traditional broadcast viewer, for significantly less content.

Broadcast BBC TV cannot be viewed outside the UK because physics. (OK maybe Netherlands and Eire). Online, in theory, can be viewed anywhere.

The BBC has to buy a certain amount of its content from third-party producers. It has to because the government tells it it has to.

Does it buy worldwide rights? Or UK broadcast-only rights? Does the third-party sell the UK rights to the BBC and the rights elsewhere piece-meal to fourth parties in order to maximize its income? My guess would be yes. Am I wrong? In this model the BBC has to be very careful what access it grants to online viewers that it cannot guarantee are in the UK to content that it cannot guarantee is being viewed in the UK.

The flip-side of course is for BBC-originated content. In principle it can do with this what it wishes, but it loses money (in an opportunity cost sense) if it doesn't play the silly region-locked game as the rest of the media with this content.

Personally I wouldn't say this is a 1940s model, I'd say this is a 1980s model. Margery Thatch and all that.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not very happy with the value I get for online content from the BBC, but I don't see it as purely the fault of the BBC. They are a punch-bag and a puppet at the same time. Many of the voices calling for change have a vested interest.

This is grossly unfair and does not represent value for money. Also the BBC enjoys a monopoly on TV and Radio in the UK and as it is funded by an almost mandatory tax it is ant-competitive too.

I have to pay for commercial TV every time I visit the supermarket, regardless of whether I watch their content.

I have no choice. I regard this as an out-of-date funding model.

The model for the current TV Licence in the UK was first defined in the Wireless & Telegraphy Act 1949, nothing to do with Margret Thatcher I'm afraid. The BBC is easily view-able as far south as Madrid, it is broadcast via satellite as well. But that is irrelevant in this instance. My gripe is with catchup and local programming. Online I can't watch the local news and documentaries live, only on catchup and then only in a standard definition format. The fact certain licensed films and sporting events aren't available online is understandable and I understand that. I see no reason why the catchup portion of the iPlayer can't be commercialised. They simply need to farm it out to their commercial arm and present it with on page advertising. The iPlayer get 350,000,000 page requests a month, that would raise a massive amount of revenue and remove the need to issue licences and enforce the policy.

Advertising promotes choice. I have the choice not to watch adverts, I also have the choice not to buy the products they advertise. This is much more progressive than a mandatory tax, that a lot of people can ill afford.

[primaeval]

I could well end up regretting getting into this, but whatever...

The fact remains that the BBC's funding model is out of date. It was devised in the late 1940s and does not take into account the changes in technology. I don't have traditional broadcast TV, I watch online only, yet I am expected to pay the same as a traditional broadcast viewer, for significantly less content.

Broadcast BBC TV cannot be viewed outside the UK because physics. (OK maybe Netherlands and Eire). Online, in theory, can be viewed anywhere.

The BBC has to buy a certain amount of its content from third-party producers. It has to because the government tells it it has to.

Does it buy worldwide rights? Or UK broadcast-only rights? Does the third-party sell the UK rights to the BBC and the rights elsewhere piece-meal to fourth parties in order to maximize its income? My guess would be yes. Am I wrong? In this model the BBC has to be very careful what access it grants to online viewers that it cannot guarantee are in the UK to content that it cannot guarantee is being viewed in the UK.

The flip-side of course is for BBC-originated content. In principle it can do with this what it wishes, but it loses money (in an opportunity cost sense) if it doesn't play the silly region-locked game as the rest of the media with this content.

Personally I wouldn't say this is a 1940s model, I'd say this is a 1980s model. Margery Thatch and all that.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not very happy with the value I get for online content from the BBC, but I don't see it as purely the fault of the BBC. They are a punch-bag and a puppet at the same time. Many of the voices calling for change have a vested interest.

This is grossly unfair and does not represent value for money. Also the BBC enjoys a monopoly on TV and Radio in the UK and as it is funded by an almost mandatory tax it is ant-competitive too.

I have to pay for commercial TV every time I visit the supermarket, regardless of whether I watch their content.

I have no choice. I regard this as an out-of-date funding model.

The model for the current TV Licence in the UK was first defined in the Wireless & Telegraphy Act 1949, nothing to do with Margret Thatcher I'm afraid. The BBC is easily view-able as far south as Madrid, it is broadcast via satellite as well. But that is irrelevant in this instance. My gripe is with catchup and local programming. Online I can't watch the local news and documentaries live, only on catchup and then only in a standard definition format. The fact certain licensed films and sporting events aren't available online is understandable and I understand that. I see no reason why the catchup portion of the iPlayer can't be commercialised. They simply need to farm it out to their commercial arm and present it with on page advertising. The iPlayer get 350,000,000 page requests a month, that would raise a massive amount of revenue and remove the need to issue licences and enforce the policy.

Advertising promotes choice. I have the choice not to watch adverts, I also have the choice not to buy the products they advertise. This is much more progressive than a mandatory tax, that a lot of people can ill afford.

If you have ever watched commercial TV in the USA you will be grateful to pay the BBC as much money as they want for advert free quality programming.

The license fee in Denmark is nearly twice as much as in the UK and the quality is a fraction of the BBC. You really appreciate the BBC when you don't have it.

The BBC have been testing the waters about making iPlayer a global streaming service with adverts for years (at least north american) but it pays more to be included as part of cable subscriptions so far. I'm sure they will switch if the balance changes.

I still think it should come from general taxation though.

[speedwell68]

I could well end up regretting getting into this, but whatever...


Broadcast BBC TV cannot be viewed outside the UK because physics. (OK maybe Netherlands and Eire). Online, in theory, can be viewed anywhere.

The BBC has to buy a certain amount of its content from third-party producers. It has to because the government tells it it has to.

Does it buy worldwide rights? Or UK broadcast-only rights? Does the third-party sell the UK rights to the BBC and the rights elsewhere piece-meal to fourth parties in order to maximize its income? My guess would be yes. Am I wrong? In this model the BBC has to be very careful what access it grants to online viewers that it cannot guarantee are in the UK to content that it cannot guarantee is being viewed in the UK.

The flip-side of course is for BBC-originated content. In principle it can do with this what it wishes, but it loses money (in an opportunity cost sense) if it doesn't play the silly region-locked game as the rest of the media with this content.

Personally I wouldn't say this is a 1940s model, I'd say this is a 1980s model. Margery Thatch and all that.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not very happy with the value I get for online content from the BBC, but I don't see it as purely the fault of the BBC. They are a punch-bag and a puppet at the same time. Many of the voices calling for change have a vested interest.


I have to pay for commercial TV every time I visit the supermarket, regardless of whether I watch their content.

I have no choice. I regard this as an out-of-date funding model.

The model for the current TV Licence in the UK was first defined in the Wireless & Telegraphy Act 1949, nothing to do with Margret Thatcher I'm afraid. The BBC is easily view-able as far south as Madrid, it is broadcast via satellite as well. But that is irrelevant in this instance. My gripe is with catchup and local programming. Online I can't watch the local news and documentaries live, only on catchup and then only in a standard definition format. The fact certain licensed films and sporting events aren't available online is understandable and I understand that. I see no reason why the catchup portion of the iPlayer can't be commercialised. They simply need to farm it out to their commercial arm and present it with on page advertising. The iPlayer get 350,000,000 page requests a month, that would raise a massive amount of revenue and remove the need to issue licences and enforce the policy.

Advertising promotes choice. I have the choice not to watch adverts, I also have the choice not to buy the products they advertise. This is much more progressive than a mandatory tax, that a lot of people can ill afford.

If you have ever watched commercial TV in the USA you will be grateful to pay the BBC as much money as they want for advert free quality programming.

The license fee in Denmark is nearly twice as much as in the UK and the quality is a fraction of the BBC. You really appreciate the BBC when you don't have it.

The BBC have been testing the waters about making iPlayer a global streaming service with adverts for years (at least north american) but it pays more to be included as part of cable subscriptions so far. I'm sure they will switch if the balance changes.

I still think it should come from general taxation though.

I am not talking about commercialising the content. Just the pages. With their page load stats that will create a lot of revenue with no loss of quality for the end user. The BBC being paid for by the Treasury out of general taxation is a great idea for the end user. But it is anti-competitive. All the other TV providers in the UK sell advertising time based on viewer ratings, it is unfair that the BBC just gets a large sum of money handed to them on a plate.

[primaeval]

I am not talking about commercialising the content. Just the pages. With their page load stats that will create a lot of revenue with no loss of quality for the end user. The BBC being paid for by the Treasury out of general taxation is a great idea for the end user. But it is anti-competitive. All the other TV providers in the UK sell advertising time based on viewer ratings, it is unfair that the BBC just gets a large sum of money handed to them on a plate.

They have added adverts in the News pages for international users. I'll have to turn off uBlock Origin first to check though.

They are in a bit of a bind with iPlayer because international broadcasters signed agreements for exclusive rights to the content in their country.

If the BBC had just stuck to Informing and Educating the Nation there wouldn't be a problem with funding them from general taxation. When ITV started they had to start competing for Entertainment which makes them look like a commercial broadcaster.

Maybe its time to split the Entertainment section off as a commercial enterprise and keep the Educating and Informing sections under public funding.

[DarrenHill]

Those adverts have been there for ages for international users of the BBC website.