The chief executive officers of Talkback Thames and Fremantle Media (the parent company of Talkback Thames) have shown support for a "micro-payment" model for the BBC iPlayer. According to an article by the BBC yesterday, Lorraine Heggessey of Talkback Thames and Tony Cohen of Fremantle Media have added to the support from the media industry to introduce a new revenue model for online catch-up services.According to research by Fremantle, users would be willing to pay up to £2 to see their favourite shows using an online catch-up service based around a micro-payment model. Catch-up services have proved popular since their initial release, with Channel 4 releasing their own, and Five doing the same.
Although other broadcasters are calling for support for micro-payment schemes to be implemented, a BBC spokesperson said "the cost of the BBC iPlayer is covered by the licence fee, so UK users have already paid for this service."
The BBC iPlayer has become popular following its release in late 2007, and has spread to numerous platforms. However, Steve Hewlett, former director of programmes at Carlton Television, thinks the BBC should charge users to watch shows using the iPlayer service. "Traditionally, licence fee payers have paid for access on a TV set - and only for the first transmission," he said. "The BBC never thought it was appropriate to give away DVDs, so why should catch-up be free?"
However, the fact that the BBC does not charge for its iPlayer service could make it difficult for other broadcasters to start charging, he mentioned.
I pay my licence fee and at the end of the day am entitled to atch that show whenever I like, they don't give away DVD's because you can't keep them!!!! You can't (legally) capture a streaming video to keep!!!
I pay my licence fee and at the end of the day am entitled to atch that show whenever I like, they don't give away DVD's because you can't keep them!!!! You can't (legally) capture a streaming video to keep!!!
Yeah, this sounds absurd...
Very much doubt it's illegal to commercialise programs or they wouldn't be able to sell them around the world as they do.
Actually it's only illegal to commercialise those shows when shown on BBC 1,2,3 and 4, the streamin iPlayer service could in effect commercialise programmes just as the MSN player does
They have probably said Xusers*£2 = BIG profits.
If they can afford to offer it free now? What has changed to make them charge?
..........
I'm a user, and no, I would not be willing. Nor able.
I use it sometimes, not often, but in all honesty I prefer TvCatchup and watch live freeview streams instead.
Somehow I don't see it happening though.
And no, iTunes is NOT a viable solution. I'd rather ram a brick through my PC than install iTunes on it; it'd cause less crashes.
Great idea, and ridiculous that it's not been implemented already. They could even time delay/advance it so that if the show is on in the US at 8pm on the 3rd of October (example), it could be shown at the exact same time for streaming for international users. Hell, they already do this with Sirius. I listened to Radio 1 (BBC funny enough) in the rental motor on my last holiday in Florida, it was brilliant!
Where the hell did they do this research? I don't know of anyone that would pay for it, given that we brits already pay extortionate amounts for our TV Licences.
Less than £3 a week isn't exactly expensive. You can't buy much TV for that much, everywhere else in the world charge more.
Also most channels you get on paid services are nonsense, there's only a handful worth paying for.
Also, 2 quid a week for unlimited access would be fine, I ain't then paying an extra 130 quid (appro
Also, 2 quid a week for unlimited access would be fine, I ain't then paying an extra 130 quid (appro
It doesnt matter if you have anything that receives radio/tv anymore, last year (?) it was made a mandatory tax.
What a load of rubbish.
You need a license if you have equipment capable of receiving a live TV signal AND use it in order to view "TV programmes as they appear on TV". You are well within your rights to own a TV without a license as long as you don't connect it to an aerial and watch TV on it.
You do not need a license to watch TV clips on your computer, you do need one though if you watch live streaming TV, those are programmes which are available to view over the internet at the same time as they appear on TV apparently.
You do now need to give your personal details (Name, Address ,etc) if you purchase a TV in the UK now so that they can verify that you are paying for your TV licence.
Thanks for telling us all something which has been in effect for nearly over half a decade...
Owning a TV isn't enough to make someone pay for a license. These scare tactics used to make people pay for licenses they simply may not need, are wrong.
Read the terms and requirements for owning a license... If read properly ,and not the fluffy "overview", it quite clearly states that you can own a TV WITHOUT a license as long as you don't connect it to an aerial and watch TV as it is being shown.
I think not!!
Sign me up! 20p, you're having a laugh, right?
I know that legally the BBC can never advertise but if i find myself having to pay anything to catch up on missed programmes then it will straight off to certain other streaming websites/Torrent sites for me!
Tell you what, why not make us pay for iPlayer.... then see 99% of it's user base disappear overnight whist the majority of people fork out £50 on a PVR. Does the same thing.
And the crap he spouts about "Traditionally, licence fee payers have paid for access on a TV set - and only for the first transmission".
Take it he hasn't seen repeats of any of the shows his company produces on any BBC channel..?
I don't know how the law stands, but I assume the licence fee entitles me to watch the content via the BBC without adverts. The medium should be irrelevent (web, mobile or TV).
I rarely use iPlayer anyway, but I'd stick solely to my Windows Media Centre (which cost a whopping £30 to enable it to work as a high-end PVR - including watching it on my XBox360 upstairs on the big telly)
What a jerk.
I dont think the BBC should bow to this lot, and anyway we already pay for it via the license fee.
On average i watch 10 shows a week 2 * 10 = £20 and that is a WEEK, like i have £20 lying round to feed the BBC, i pay enough on my TV License for the likes of Chris Moyles to wake me up in the morning on his ridiculous 600k a year salery, so NO i would not be happy nore am i happy about this muppet ranting this.
R.
In the end, all commercial TV will end up Pay Per View. Looks like I'll be taking up reading and piracy! lol
In the end, all commercial TV will end up Pay Per View. Looks like I'll be taking up reading and piracy! lol
+1
Secondly... ah sod it, I can't be bothered. Everything else in your post was wrong or misinformed.
Other than who is wanting people to pay, what else was wrong? Do you or do you not have to pay a license to watch TV? Doesn't the BBC send inspectors around to make sure that people with TVs or other devices that can receive broadcasts pay for their license? Isn't the point of the iPlayer to allow you to watch TV shows on your computer for up to a week after they were broadcast? Wouldn't the proposed charge be at least (and probably more) than what iTunes currently charges for an episode?
I think that covers every other point in my post, so where was I wrong or misinformed?
You're other points have validity, but you might have avoided a negative reaction if you hadn't insulted our TV system. Also this proposed charge will never come about, because the BBC won't let it, and despite them being linked to the government in a way, they are in charge of their own destiny; they make their own decisions.
If it wasn't because of the BBC, it is very likely that ITV and Channel 4 would already be charging for online content. Of the £11.63 we pay for our licenses a month (which comes to £139.50 per year), just £0.63 of that goes towards the online service, not bad considering that the BBC iPlayer pumps out 12GB a second at peak times.
We like to have a whine about it here and there, but I prefer them over any other. And the license inspectors usually send you a letter, or give you a ring if anything is wrong before sending someone round (although it does happen sometimes). It is in our interests that everyone pays their license. It would be unfair for 90% of people to pay for it whilst 10% are watching it without paying for it.
Thanks for cleaing that up. Obviously my only information on this comes from what people in your country post here. However, that's like saying that the FBI comes around policing FCC policies. Either way it is one government agency or the other checking up on you.
Considering that Brits and others around the world take every chance possible to insult the US, all I can say about that is "turnabout is fairplay".
Probably so, but you can probably bet that there are those in the BBC who would love to charge for it.
The commercial side of the beeb...
http://www.bbcworldwide.com/about-bbc-worldwide.aspx
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.