I’m on Talk Radio tomorrow morning just after 9am chatting to Paul Ross about this item.
People who only watch BBC shows on catchup will be legally required to have a TV licence from 1 September, when new legislation to close the so-called “iPlayer loophole” comes into force. Though the vast majority of households own a TV licence, those without one who only watch catch-up content and not live broadcasts were technically exempt from paying the £145 a year charge. The government had promised to close the loophole, which already costs the BBCabout £150m a year and is likely to increase, during negotiations last summer that also saw the corporation agree to shoulder the £750m burden of free licence fees for the over-75s.
Wonder what your thoughts are? I can understand why the BBC want to close the loophole on a commercial basis and that seems fair to me. But the actual License Tax is the problem. It MAY or MAY NOT be seen as good value but it is not a choice. What say you?
How are the BBC going to police this new law,they can’t really do much about people who don’t pay their tv licence as they are not allowed to enter private dwellings without permission.
I was recently on holiday in Italy and watch some BBC tv on my hotel tv, do Italians pay for the tv licence?
I seem to remember that the bbc, I mean the TV licensing authority, is one of the biggest users of one of the provisions of one of the terrorist acts. Thus they see an IP address being used to access their live programs (and now watch again programs). They then apply to the service provider for the real life postal address and real life name of that ip user. This is the proof they need in court that that postal address and that naughty person does not have a tv licence and can be “done”.
Unless of course you live in Scotland, where no one has been “done” for over 10 years. Which is nice.
That will not happen – the BBC will not have access to IP records from ISPs because the internet providers will not cooperate. And there is no legal compulsion to do so.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php
Many people – me included – have a roaming IP address – it changes frequently to various locations in the North West of England, but interestingly enough never at my actual home town.
I’m sure it’s the case with many others too – a fact the BBC will not wish to disclose no doubt.
In Italy they’ll have been watching BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm, and not funded by the licence fee.
Kikuchiyo
It would be a good idea to make the whole of the BBC a commercial service. Pay as you go say ?
No more licence fee . Hooray .
The ‘commercial arm’?
Interesting distinction.
What unique funding source is behind the production of the content they air?
I guess it’s interesting if you find that interesting.
Company annual review here:
https://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/
Seems people want to buy BBC programmes, and other broadcasters are keen too.
Kikuchiyo,
You have made the best case possible for changing the BBC to a subscription channel.
Anything the BBC does is funded by the licence fee, where else do they get funding?
>Anything the BBC does is funded by the licence fee, where else do they get funding?<
Answer: The EU in the form of grants and other donations. This is well documented.
Also, sales of BBC programmes etc internationally.
Also, I think the World Service (or whatever its called these days) accepts funding commercially.
Finally, the best model of all is the subscription model. If the BBC thinks that everyone loves it for its excellent one size fits all service model, then it shouldn't have a problem with a subscription based model. We all know though that that isn’t the case.
Funny how the BBC always seems quite happy with the loophole whereby TV set owners who never watch BBC programmes are still compelled by law to pay a tax to fund the BBC.
Fair enough if you don’t pay, you can’t watch. But if you don’t watch why should you pay?
That’s not a loophole, that is the legislation. I fund the NHS, haven’t used it in years. Etc etc
The BBC isn’t funded by general taxation (yet) but by a TV licence. The expectation being that if you have a TV you watch the BBC, and the implication being that if you don’t have a TV and don’t watch the BBC you don’t pay. The bargain also was that the BBC had an obligation to impartially educate and inform.
As recently as the 70s the BBC provided 2 of the 3 broadcast channels which were the only TV content available, and the BBC bias was less political. The situation now is very different.
The BBC does not now provide a public service, and is just one more content provider with a political agenda, distinguished only by its lavish funding model.
It is ridiculous to compare the funding of the NHS, defence etc with that for a commonplace entertainment provider.
Kikuchiyo,
Do you intend to use the NHS in the future , or will you use it whatever in the future ?
What about everyone not resident in the UK? Why can they get BBC services for nothing.
The BBC is getting even worse.They have even put me off watching any of their proms coverage, not that there is much these days.
BBC Proms (TV):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WlmXYLGsch49MpyfHDFwBp/tv-schedule
BBC Proms (Radio)Every Prom is broadcast live on BBC Radio 3:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/17SZhnLQpMbhcmbfjvh3bYj/proms-on-radio
Proms available to listen again to (currently 23 pages)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007v097/episodes/player
You cannot watch iPlayer outside the UK even before today.
Does this mean that if you have a home Internet connection the BBC will expect you to pay the licence fee?
Only if you use TV iPlayer.
My understanding is that it will be an ‘honour’ system, whereby you’ll be able to watch recorded or live if you click the affirmative to state you have a licence.
You will not need a TV licence to download or watch programmes on demand from other providers.
I hope other providers will make that clear.
Is ‘understanding’ the same as ‘belief’? Very ECU directorish.
And will TVL/Capita be maintaining an ‘honour’ system as it has to date, issuing misleading or threatening letters and deploying salesmen who seem reluctant to accept householder word at the doorstep in seeking to gain entrance to private homes?
That’s my understanding, if you wish to know, why don’t you ask TV licensing. Or you can rely on what you read on a Blog.
It doesn’t have to be an “honour” system.
It could just as well be a secure system whereby the user logs in with a username and a password on a registered device. If the TV licence associated with that username and registered device is paid up to date then the system permits you get to view the content; if not, it doesn’t. This is how iTunes, Spotify etc have been operating for years.
The reason Al Beeb isn’t doing this is because it represents the top end of a short, steep, slippery and blindingly obvious slope towards the dreaded subscription model on “regular” TV. Offered a choice to opt out, there is a risk that too many hoi polloi might take it (as with Brexit)!
How can it be a public service to allow “dishonourable” non-payers a free ride on content paid for by “honourable” payers?
That’s probably where we are headed, I watch YouTube more than anything else, presumably watching BBC on YT will become a payable service in time.
I too watch Youtube a lot, I find it has far more interesting programmes than most TV channels. There are also a number of commercial TV streaming websites, so really, there’s not much need for a telly. I gave up my telly last year and am saving up the licence fee money for a digital projector for my laptop, for more of a home cinema experience.
No, because the internet is a worldwide network.
The advantage the BBC has with the internet is that it is easier to monitor its audience because there is a 2-way connection. When you watch TV over air you receive the signal from the transmitter but your TV does not send a signal back.
With the internet, your PC/tablet/whatever sends a request to the BBC website and the website responds. The BBC will have EVERY IP number of its online audience and your ISP will all YOUR information.
The license tax is anything but a good deal. It’s a fundamentally illiberal imposition that requires anyone in this country who wishes to watch any broadcast TV programmes at all, from any provider whatsoever, to stump up £145 p.a. to fund the wretched BBC before they can do so legally. Quite irrespective of whether they ever watch the BBC itself or not, or of whether they’re personally unwilling to fund the corporation. For whatever reason, from simple non-consumption of its output to aversion to enabling the dissemination of its palpable political biases.
I accept that this perspective may seem somewhat o.t.t. in view of what to most of us is a quite modest outlay, but still consider the arguments above remain valid on both counts. For a significant number of poorer viewers it does constitute yet another cost they could well do without. All the more so given those who find it most burdensome are also most typically part of that demographic which rarely accesses the BBC’s output at all. Hence the claim that the BBC’s funding mechanism amounts essentially to compelling Sun readers to subsidise Guardian readers’ home entertainment options.
While on the point regarding political bias, the following analogy may usefully illustrate the principle involved. Consider what the reaction would be if a similar situation pertained with respect to print media. So that one was obliged to pay, say, a 50p tax at any newsagent or equivalent outlet to fund ”The Guardian” before being permitted to purchase a copy of any other newspaper or magazine at all, or even to pick up a free-sheet. Again, irrespective of whether or not one then decided to bother picking up a copy of today’s ”Grauniad” too.
Simply, if the licence is fair and just, those watching on IPlayer should be treated in the same way and be made to pay it. The real argument is whether the licence itself is fair and just. The answer should be a resounding no as the BBC, these days, is only intended for the benefit of an elite minority. These Guardian, Islington types who subscribe to the same narrow, hate-filled opinions as the BBC should foot all the bill. Some hope!!!
Quite; and so the solution is obvious. Privatise the whole stinking shebang and let the BBC offer a range of channel packages/ pay-per-view opptions in the same way as Sky and equivalent providers already manage to do in most countries.
The advantages are obbvious
-consumers would pay a commercial rate for what they wish to view, or if they do not wish to view it, need not pay anything.
-no one would be obliged to avoid the risk of being criminalised by having to make payments they either cannot afford or object to making on principle in view of the broadcaster’s editorial stance.
-The BBC itself would be freed from the need to sustain a pretence of objectivity/impartiality in accordance with its current charter obligations and would be able to position itself to attract its preferred market base. Including via open advocacy for its already obvious political preferences.
In short, it would operate just like all other media orgs do already and like them, would have to sink or swim on its own merits.
Subscription is the best solution but the BBC is clearly happier with the license fee. The BBC funded through general taxation or a levy on council tax would be a disaster as there would be no way of opting out. The present set up is not too bad – we can refuse to pay and still legally own a TV to play computer games, watch DVDs and films from the internet / youtube.
Keep the views coming -all v interesting
David, there are some interesting views in this post for tvlicenceresistance.info
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,13396.msg126148.html#msg126148
The BBC could control access to iPlayer by requiring a valid TV licence number to be entered, but this, of course, would be the precursor for a subscription system. That is the last thing the BBC wants.
When we sit down for a an evening’s viewing, we fire up the Xbox and surf the tabbed catchup choices.
As of tonight, the BBC is off the list. No loss. In the last month we watched the final episode of Musketeers and that was it.
Look at the dross on the iPlayer Home page, most popular, etc.
There has not been a decent doco in months. The films are clearly what the head of commissioning and his ten lovely boys bought last year at the Columbian Ripe Apple Product Festival.
C4 is mostly poo, with a few decent cop shows and US comedies. Ch5 actually has a fair smattering of US cop shows, but their films are pants.
ITV… yes, well.
Amazon Prime still has enough material on films and TV to make the sub worth it.
I am really enjoying Braindead. So far no overt partisan tilts, but we’ll see.
It’s a waycist tax.
Only those people watching BBC iPlayer will have to pay the tax. If you are Polish and stream Polish internet TV you won’t need a licence, similarly Lithuanian, Russian Nigerian. Even more reason for them to contribute less to British society.
How many loopholes do al-Beeb jump through regarding the legal obligation to their charter?
I spend two months a year here in the UK. When here I rent holiday cottages, which may be covered by the owner’s licence, or a camper van which certainly won’t. Am I required to buy a licence? Will we be required to provide evidence of having a licence at passport control? Will the cost of a licence fee be included in visitor visa fees? Will I get a refund for the ten months I am not here? I enjoy many hours of BBC radio for free during the other ten months of the year around the world. Is it me or is this bonkers?
The BBC agreed to ‘shoulder’ the burden of the World Service previously but the metropolitan elites squealed so much the Foreign Office rapidly started to subsidise it again.
I don’t know why they bother, as Radio 4 is now the World Service in all but name, with diversity and ethnicity entirely dominant.
If the Beeb had not insisted on subsidising its own staff pension scheme by a billion pounds three years ago they would not be needing to tax ever more people while running a diet of repeats and formulaic programmes instead of anything original.
BBC 4 is just cut and paste TOTP now.
Get yourselves a Kodi-Xbmc box. They cost about £35 on ebay, plugged into your TVs HDMI port and they stream TV/films over your Wifi network. Just about every TV programme and film you can think of for free.
Technically there is a UK grey legal area about streaming. As no copy of the material is made no copyright laws are broken.
Is it just coincidence that the IPlayer on my Sony Bravia becomes defunct as of tomorrow?
This new legislation seems to be pretty much useless. If I understand the situation correctly the BBC will have no extra powers of investigation, ISP’s will not provide the BBC with any records of who’s been accessing the iPlayer, they will have no way of tracking who watches the iPlayer and the new legislation only applies to the iPlayer and not any other catch up service.
However, and it may or may not be a coincidence, the timing of this is interesting. This new law comes into effect just before the start of the academic year. It’s reasonable to assume that there is a high rate of student houses who have no TV licence, and that as they have grown up with the internet, that they are more likely to use catch up tv than older generations.
I’m wondering if the Beeb are trying to scare more students into buying a TV licence?
This change of the law was targeted at students. The BBC admitted this is an area where they don’t get their “unique way of funding”.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/students-aud1?WT.mc_id=r044&x=0
According to the link above a Student Halls of Residence needs a TV license for EACH student room but Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace just need one license. I bet there is no multiple room rule for prisons or mosques.
Thanks for the link Tabs, very interesting. I particularly enjoy that they only offer refunds in 3month blocks, so utterly useless for most students. It’s also interesting that they don’t offer a student discounted licence fee, can’t imagine why.
They really are just a bunch of greedy, self serving two faced b*****ds
The BBC is becoming as tiresome as a screaming 4 year old .Gimme gimme gimme. It is not even worth making a reasoned argument for the abolition of the tax. The kiddies won’t listen and just want more toys in their prams.
One of the last vested interests left in Britain and quite the most useless.
The only reason, that I can see, why the BBC are obsessed with never ending immigration is the more people we have in the UK, the more houses need building and each house needs a TV license – more money for the BBC to pay themselves bigger wages.
I have always thought that the licence fee was wrong in principle. It dates back to keeping the ‘airwaves’ clear of interference for naval communications when a badly made receiver could cause problems.
If, and it is a big if, the BBC kept to its remit I would be in favour of paying for it out of general taxation. At the moment the licence fee is a regressive tax, poor students and low-income single mothers pay it, multi-millionaire Asians with live-in grannies don’t.
The other thing that is wrong in principle with the idea of a licence is that radio waves and the internet are both effectively free, they aren’t owned by government or the BBC. If the BBC chooses to scatter its output via these essentially free access routes why shouldn’t anyone pay? It is as though banks hurled money from the tops of their towers and expected the recipients to pay for it!
As for iPlayer etc. how daft can the BBC be? They have encouraged the young to use mobile devices and provided the support and only now realised that these are the very people that DON’T pay for any of it! (I expect it is written off as educating a new generation of Marxist SJWs, [by the way who pays for all the micro:bits?])
Rather than bother about how the BBC is funded the first thing that should be tackled is its remit and how it carries it out. No-one wants a government channel but neither should there be a non-accountable, tax-payer funded, campaigning, (as opposed to impartial reporting), channel.
Good luck tomorrow david,i begrudge paying for something that’s objective is not real it paints a united front a fantasy britain.My interests are political programmes msm propaganda its ideology its unelected opinions forced on to me.The presenters come across as arrogant and that there following a script of trickery.They come across as less intelligent than years gone by,i’m left to record newsnight,question time for personal editing.The news is to biased to view, the only other things i watch are Would i lie to you and the sherlock series.The spy or detective series are now awful, no decent old films or comedy from the black and white days.It’s not worth the money it’s like paying money to an organisation run by people who have robbed me of my interests.
David, When the BBC brought in the iPlayer, they knew that TV viewing was shifting to selective internet use as an alternative to scheduled live broadcasting.
Many viewers, particularly the younger audience have opted to watch catch up services and abandoned the need for a TV licence. The resultant loss of TV Licence revenue was anticipated and so the BBC used this to pursue their ultimate aim of shifting the licence fee onto a form of household tax, a policy they have openly acknowledged.
However, the recent charter Review has ruled this out but I suspect that John Whittingdale has left a sting in his tail as the BBC now has the option to implement some form of conditional access to iPlayer (some form of log in or registration system).
The BBC will avoid this at all costs as I said in an earlier post, as it would be the beginnings of a subscription system. The recent nonsense about WiFi “packet sniffing” was an exercise in distraction the public attention.
I would be happy to discuss this further by email.
David if there’s one thing you’d care to highlight with the state (broadcaster) IMO which has been mentioned here on other threads is that if the BBC think they are so wonderful why not just jump into the ring and put their money where their mouth is and make it a paid for service…. I think we all know the reason they won’t but it would be nice to see the shoe on the other foot for 30 seconds at least!
Probably too late, but isn’t the iPlayer a potential gateway to BBC material for ex-pats who cannot receive BBC over air or satellite? Is there potential for people worldwide to pay for access, and in turn increase BBC funds?
Selling worldwide subscriptions would raise huge amounts for the BBC, but they are terrified of letting go of guaranteed easy funding. It also perpetuates their sense non-commercial elitism.
Counter-measures: use a VPN service IN CONJUCTION WITH OBFSPROXY (OPENVPN+OBFSPROXY).
Can Capita’s Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) ‘technology’ tell the difference between say a livestream from BBC News24, as opposed to, for instance livestream from Youtube, or RT.com, aljazeera.com?
What if you have four or five windows open, and stream from several different websites SIMULTANEOUSLY? Would this muddy the waters?
Even if their ‘technology’ can differentiate between various livestreams, effective counter-measures exist by using a VPN service IN CONJUCTION WITH OBFSPROXY (OPENVPN+OBFSPROXY).
Several VPN service providers allow this, and such techniques are successful used by millions who reside in even nastier regimes than our own in the UK, such as Iran, China, Pakistan.
Mullvad, NordVPN, Proxy.sh, VPN.AC, are just a small example of the many providers who now provide OPENVPN+OBFSPROXY technology.
Continue to bin the letters, and use a VPN service which has a track record of defeating the Great Firewall of China (one which uses TOR’s obfs technology), and continue to use the BBC iplayer (Live or not).
((It may also possible to use STUNNEL in conjunction with a VPN service to defeat DPI)).
At the end of the day the [B]lantantly [B]iased [C]orporation will continue to rely on the same old nasty letters, littered with the phrases such as ‘Interview Under Caution’ and ‘Police And Criminal Evidence’ Act, thrown in, to fool the stupid into mistakenly believing that the TV enforcement staff have ‘Police Powers’.
Whilst those with a half a brain know it’s safe to continue to bin the letters, and shut the door in the face of any inspector who does pay a visit.
***
(This is just another example of the ‘CONservatives’ wimping-out from what really needs to be done.
(With such a plurality of media in this country, the role of a ‘State-Broadcaster’ is unnecessary.
(The TV-TAX should be abolished, with the BBC being PRIVATISED and the proceeds from any sales given to the public in the form of a TAX-CUT).
“But the actual License Tax is the problem. It MAY or MAY NOT be seen as good value but it is not a choice. What say you?”
I would love to know how much of the Liecence fee budget Mr Attenborough receives? One would expect the paying public to know these things considering the Elites within the BBC want to know my every move re my TV/Website/Radio viewing and how much I pay them?
A point, too late for David Vance’s broadcast appearance, is that past Licence Fee payers own the BBC, lock stock and barrel. It is a cheek to expect LF payers, past, present or future, to pay for anything, such as downloads, past programmes on DVD, etc., from the BBC or have no say over the BBC, its products and direction.
Without the Licence Fee Payer of the past, the BBC would not exist.
It belongs to them, it belongs to us.
David is on Jon Gaunt in a few minutes.
Thanks Geoff – he got a much better hearing on Jon Gaunt than he did on TalkRadio…
Listen again at http://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1472706000#
(David Vance comes in at 28:25, in the ‘9:00 – 9:30’ slot)
State funded mega media organisation – its so yesteryear.
Why do we need such an anachronism in the 21st century. Is it because we need to give huge salaries to third rate media studies graduates?
Interesting how David’s intro was as the author of the blog “a tangled web”
Hmmmmm I’m not a radio show host however I think there’s another blog that would have been just a tad more relevant
Simply explained: the BBC is non commercial.
Except when it is, with Apple for example, especially around Christmas when the ‘losses’ mount up. This may change, now, of course.
Ironically this blog is actually, non-commercial.
Good point, BrutalTruth.
On the radio show in discussion, a professor from some “modern” university in England, probably a media studies professor,stated that the real problem with David Vance’s critique is that he doesn’t like the BBC. But, he continued, millions of people do like the BBC.
Lets see now. Millions of people in the UK love pizzas. Does that mean that we should pay a license fee of say £3 per week. For this small charge, a whole family could have pizzas every day, for the whole year. Not bad, considering there is a whole range of pizzas, from the vegetarian, to the carnivorous.
But but you say , we will get fed up with pizzas. Precisely. We are fed up with a diet of BBC leftylib nonsense. Just like a steady diet of pizzas makes for a flabby nation, so a steady diet of BBC, makes for an intellectually lazy and flabby people.
The reply to that professor should be “If millions love the BBC let them pay for it and leave the rest of us, who don’t love it, alone”.
I don’t think David Vance’s issue really is with the BBC’s impartiality. As he’s said before, he doesn’t think its possible for a broadcaster, or anyone in fact, to achieve impartiality. (Except for Fox News, whose ‘fair and balanced’ news he described as ‘refreshing’)
His issue is with the licence fee, as he sees it as a form of communism/socialism. Same issue he has with the NHS. And he has a McCarthyite attitude toward communism/socialism.
Everybody should have a McCarthyite attitude towards communism/socialism.
The tax is regressive . It is outmoded. It can be replaced easily by a subscription model. You want the BBC you pay for it.
There is no possible defence for it that is acceptable in 2016 given the present state of the technology. To describe it as a tax on TV ownership as it’s apologists do is just plain wrong and irrelevant. .The money goes to the BBC and I believe it’s minime C4.
The money should be returned to the people.Comparisons with the NHS are absurd.
At any moment any one of us might need the NHS. We can go a lifetime without ever needing the BBC.
It really isn’t good value at all.The BBC has become greedy and bloated and still hasn’t sorted out the overpaid management structures.
Like all socialist organisations they enjoy splurging other people’s money with no accountability ,rewarding themselves and their insider cronies just like the bloated EU cronies .Brexit the movie could easily be BBC the Movie .
More and more people are switching it off.Its only a matter of time before the tax has to go.How many more BBC scandals do there have to be.
And while I’m at it, another programme I no longer watch Bake Off…Produced and diversified ,no longer about baking skils but about how right on and PC the Beeb is .
Deborahanother
Completely agree with you.
However,
Its only a matter of time before the tax has to go
I think that would require that both this government and opposition will have to go first, because they have shown the inclination to listen to the swelling opposition to the tax.
Its not good value at all. Besides many people are getting so annoyed with this Mafia like extortion racket, that it might cause anger at simply viewing a BBC advert.
On physical as well as mental health issues, BBC extortion money should be abolished.
I don’t think our present Government is helping itself ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030
Interesting use of the word ‘force’.
I thought the de rigeur option was ‘service’.
If they fail to close this so called “loophole” and faced with the cost burden of the over 75’s then a major downsizing or re-positioning of this organ would surely follow pretty quickly.
Perhaps its at that point where phased in subscription has to be considered together with the privatization option………….which would get my vote.