bloody media whores and their money grabbing

[Ch3tan]

BBC NEWS | Technology | Pay for BBC iPlayer says TV chief

Glad the beebs stance seems to be, no thanks, it's covered by the licence fee. Do these idiots really think people would pay for tv shows that are broadcast for free? If they want to make revenue off them, they should sell ad space on the online broadcasts.

 

[Dreamor]

Yeah was reading this in the week, iPlayer for me is the only reason I still pay TV license.

I hope the beeb continue to play the 'no thanks' card, and don't fold or get thoughts of extra money making. We already have BT with there +50p tax...

 

[Tom]

AFAIK a television licence is not required if you use the iPlayer service over the internet.

 

[Dreamor]

AFAIK a television licence is not required if you use the iPlayer service over the internet.

no but the money you spend on TV license goes to its continual service support and development, right?

 

[DaGaffer]

On the other hand, speaking as a non-UK resident, I'd be quite happy to get access to the iPlayer via micropayments, as I'm sure lots of people would (there are millions of ex-pats for a start), so I don't see why you can't have both models; free for licence payers, paid for everyone else. (The ad model won't work; there isn't enough ad revenue available).

 

[old.Tohtori]

In Finland they're planning to put internet access into the TV license

So count your blessings...especially since the TV license now is only for two tv stations that only old people and bores watch.

 

[Thadius]

For the people who already pay for a tv license, then no. It should be covered by what we pay out each month.

for the foreign types who dont pay the license, I agree on them having to "pay" a small fee to view such material.

 

[TdC]

tbh if I could use a system like iPlayer that would guarantee me quality television I would use it in a flash. currently I pay something like 16 euros a month to be attached to the cable networks, and on top of that 14 euros for digital tv of which I watch about 5 channels out of all of them.

were I to be able to drop that in favour of purely watching what I felt like in exchange for a micropayment I would.

 

[Raven]

They should scrap the fee altogether to be quite honest, make the BBC subscription based. Fed up of paying what is essentially an enforced subscription when I don't even use the BBC.

 

[Chilly]

I quite like it. markets dont work all the time.

 

[DaGaffer]

They should scrap the fee altogether to be quite honest, make the BBC subscription based. Fed up of paying what is essentially an enforced subscription when I don't even use the BBC.

If you did that there would be no BBC. The economics of TV simply don't support pay as you use. Its also the reason why they don't make the football PPV. TV only works in packages, and even then, there are hardly any ad-free successful subscription services anywhere in the world. HBO is the glaring exception.

 

[Raven]

I agree but why should I have to pay the BBC so that I can watch Sky?

 

[nath]

HBO is the glaring exception.

Do you know why that is? The first thing that springs to mind is that while it's very expensive for just the one channel (as far as I know), they seem to be absolutely dedicated to high quality output. Not just expensive shit that's going to draw in the viewers (like Heroes and other such guff). The cynic in me thinks that there must be more to it than that, and that simply making a network that produces very high quality programmes is not going to be enough to keep it afloat in this day and age.

 

[Raven]

Exactly, you don't need to churn out celebrity chair watching to make money, you need to make things that will appeal to people and are worth the money. Most of the dross on TV, people only watch because they have nothing else to do, not because they actually want to watch it. There are only 24 hours in a day yet there is thousands of hours of TV output each day, the vast majority of it is utter rubbish which nobody actually watches, its no wonder TV advertising is having a hard time.

The whole business model of TV is 20 years out of date.

 

[DaGaffer]

Do you know why that is? The first thing that springs to mind is that while it's very expensive for just the one channel (as far as I know), they seem to be absolutely dedicated to high quality output. Not just expensive shit that's going to draw in the viewers (like Heroes and other such guff). The cynic in me thinks that there must be more to it than that, and that simply making a network that produces very high quality programmes is not going to be enough to keep it afloat in this day and age.

Yeah, but how many HBOs can the market bear? Its been around for a long time, but its pretty telling that it hasn't been imitated on any scale, and don't forget its also still indirectly subsidised by traditional TV because its wholly owned by Time Warner. The scary thing is that shite like the X-Factor does make money, and a lot of it, and unlike the kind of programming I'd guess most people on here would prefer, isn't at risk from piracy.

 

[Tom]

I agree but why should I have to pay the BBC so that I can watch Sky?

Why should I pay for Sky (when I buy stuff at the supermarket) when I only watch the BBC?

 

[Raven]

uh?

 

[DaGaffer]

uh?

He's saying advertising has a cost as well...