New BBC chief vows to re-invent content, not just re-purpose it
paidcontent.org
paidcontent.org
If it was not on there agenda initialy then your certainly right nowadays or at least it would be silly not to look at that opertunity to tap into overseas content base directly. Though they would need to have people login as currently I would hate to think how many VPN to get a UK'ish IP to use the service currently.
Interesting times ahead.
Currently they're funded through the "TV charge" which is a nasty footnote to life in the UK. Regularly I get hatemail through the letterbox telling me what a bad person I am for not paying the fee (mandatory for all owners of televisions), presuming that I have a TV.
Yes, you can call them up and tell them that you're not a crimial, but that's not how life in a free country is meant to work, and I'm damned if I'm going to play the game. "Return to sender" every time.
I have a television now (for the children) but that is it. When they're gone, it's going as well.
(also I didn't have a television for 10 years).
The nomenklature have got it in for you. Here, have some upvotes.
What? I live in Australia and this just isn't true. The only thing even coming close to this I can think of is that the government runs (paid) ads at times (but they also do on commercial stations). The ABC is certainly not a 'mouthpiece'...
I remember receiving one letter that said something to the effect of: "Right now, we're off to the magistrates to get an order for the police to come to your house, interview you under caution and potentially arrest you".
This was a house that I had only just moved into and didn't have a TV.
In Denmark it's more or less moved that way, except it's still annoyingly collected separately: you have to pay it if you have: 1) a television; or 2) an internet-accessible screen of any sort, including ownership of a laptop or smartphone. Since that includes just about everyone, it's basically historical baggage that it's not a regular tax. They're not at all aggressive in collecting, though—perhaps because Danes tend to follow the rules without much trouble, so there's not much need to be aggressive. I didn't realize I was supposed to pay it until I'd lived here for a year, and eventually signed up online after getting a friendly letter explaining what DR is, what they do, and what I should do.
However, the BBC offers quality TV without the even greater annoyance of incessant commercials. Take the Olympics: NBC was criticised for their delayed and edited broadcast while the BBC broadcast nearly all events live (some 20+ channels) and without any commercial breaks.
Unfortunately, we can't have commercial free TV without the fee.
You may find this hard to believe, but they drive around in a high-tech van and monitor the kinds of signals that emanate from a TV set. If they detect the electronic signature of a TV set emanating from a house paying no license fee, or if they see an off-air antenna, they begin legal proceedings.
What I said above was easier in the old days of television, where a vacuum picture tube require 50 watts of power just to sweep an electronic beam across the face of the tube (and produced its own telltale electromagnetic field). But it's still quite feasible from a technical standpoint -- a picture and explanation of one of the vans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...
You only have to pay if you watch "live TV." (Any live TV at all that is, streaming content as it is aired from the us still requires a TV license.) However, owning a TV in itself does not require a license. Games consoles, Netflix and DVDs do not mean that you require a license because none of these are you watching TV as it is broadcast.
Edit: As a note, I have a TV, I do watch live TV and I do have a license. However, when I first moved into my own place I did get some of the letters demanding payment unless I wanted legal proceedings to begin. But they stopped once I phoned up and told them I didn't have a TV, didn't intend to get one soon and wouldn't be paying.
However I thought the general consensus is that they do not actually do this, and that it is simply a rather useful myth.
Agreed. I would guess the most economical thing to do is publish pictures of the van online and describe its features. Actually driving it around is probably not nearly as cost-effective.
No doubt the enforcement system could be tweaked a bit to improve it, but the results are more than worth the inconvenience.
Nice emotive use of 'hatemail' though. Personally, I very much hope the BBC sticks to its existing funding model.
Hatemail is about right. The letters all but implied that I was lying, that I was a criminal; they told me about all the ways that they would prove that someone like me could be found to be a criminal and they told me about how they prosecute people like me. They ended with a message about how to contact them if I reconsidered.
I wish I'd kept the letter now, it was a horrible piece of bullying.
On the other hand, I don't actually mind paying money to support the BBC. As far as I can tell the system is mostly voluntary anyway since you have to actually use your TV to watch live broadcasts and I'm not sure exactly how they would prove this. So I guess scary letters might be the most effective strategy.
Ironically though, I technically don't have to pay the TV license since I literally never watch broadcast TV. All the BBC stuff I consume is via their website and iPlayer.
This license fee is paid to the BBC and used to support their programming regardless of whether or not you consume their content.
Basically this means that sometimes you can be forced to pay for stuff you simply don't want.
On the other hand , BBC programmes do not carry any advertising and are not funded by central government, so in theory at least they are impartial when it comes to coverage of politics etc. It also means they are not supported by corporate interests either, so won't scew programmes to avoid upsetting advertisers.
Whether or not they really are impartial is largely a matter of opinion, but I would personally say that they are at least less biased that other channels.
The BBC seems to be consistently hated by governments of every party, so they are presumably doing something right.
They were "hated" by the last Labour government, purely because of the BBC's anti-war stance.
On most issues, such as the EU, the environment, Israel and the Middle East etc their opinion seems to follow that of the Guardian (a left-leaning Newspaper).
If nothing else I guess that shows that they aren't simply a government mouthpiece.
And it's hardly that they are anti-war (I can remember their coverage of everything from the Falklands onward) - they were anti Gulf War 2 but then most people in the UK were...
I lived through (pause to count...) eight prime ministers. I can't recall any of those governments loving the BBC to death :-)
For some reason vaguely impartial reporting seems to annoy politicians - left or right.
And "programming" means more than just TV. It covers the radio, web stuff, etc. etc.
(there used to be a radio licence in the UK too in years gone past - abolished in 1971).
As ever wikipedia has the gory details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...
I personally find it less hassle to call them once than to continually throw their mail in the trash, but whatever floats your boat.
I'd be fascinated to hear details on how they can fund the £3.5 billion-ish the Beeb gets through each year via the licence fee by a profit model oriented around online services :-)
As soon as stuff starts getting ditched the tyranny of the majority means that you're not going to end up with documentaries and arts programming :-)
Whatever pg meant by killing Hollywood, the BBC stands the best chance of convincingly creating a new platform - beyond passive video and phone-ins, into something that is experimental, MOO, and possibly Open.
Don't move to Silicon Valley. Move to Shepherds Bush.