Options
Internet & IPTV - When will we need a license
<Finch>
Posts: 3,608 Forum Member
✭✭✭
How long do you think it will be until we need a license for a computer, just because we might get the internet and could possibly choose to visit www.BBC.co.uk?
Especially with IPTV and the likes.
Especially with IPTV and the likes.
0
Comments
Soon. The increase in video-on-demand on the net is soon going to create an alternative to tv that in time will lead to some giving up tv and therefore no longer needing a licence. Especially as research by Ofcom suggests 9% of people intend to give it up when analogue is switched off. Even if only 3% do so it will knock £100 million a year off the BBC's income.
Obviously the BBC will not take even the slightest risk of that happening and will want the licence extended to net connections before they start losing money.
So expect the BBC to demand this before the end of the year, next year at the latest. Unless, possibly, enough people make a fuss about it to frighten the Govnt about such a change in the law. But the threat of having to pay for a tv licence if you want to use the net is real, such a law has already been passed in Germany.
How many people will throw out their TV (with freeview or Sky or cable) for IPTV?
4? 5?
How will we feed it into bedrooms? Computer monitors and more PCs? Or wireless adapters?
Sure, the technology is there. But companies like Sky, with their £300 HD STB they have just pushed onto the market, will not be scrapping satellite DTH broadcasting for a long time.
IPTV, when it gets going, will be supplementary to existing services for quite a long time yet.
For streaming of individual programmes or clips I think the licence fee would be unlikely to apply unless the legislation was amended, which if possible of course, but if the situation arose where people could watch a channel via IP then a licence might be required, which I would think is the way that HomeChoice is covered.
p.
98% of homes have a tv licence.
I agree that IPTV will be supplementary for some years but video-on-demand and "tv" exclusive to the net will inevitably tempt some to give up tv, and thus the need to buy a licence. Why do you think Germany (which also has a licence funded PBS) has just passed a law requiring ownership of a tv licence for an internet connection? Why do you think all the tv companies are starting, or planning to soon start, net tv services?
Its a grey area at present. It may be that legally a TV licence is required already. You certainly need one if you have a TV card fitted to your PC. Receiving IPTV is a new area and has not yet been tested in court. In general if you have equipment capable of recieving TV tranmissions then you normally need a TV licence. It is not defined as to how the TV signal is tranmitted. So tranmission over the internet probably requires a licence. If you have a licence for you home it will already be covered in any case. I suspect to date there are few users of IPTV and most already have TV licences
The streaming of TV programs equates to the tranmission of a program it cannot be otherwise. Therefore a TV licence is already required. Undr current legislation though a TV licence covers a household so no additional licence would be needed. If a household did not have a TV licence and just watched streaming TV then a licence would already be required.
Oh, and just because other countries have something in law does not automatically mean that we will have it as well - so perhaps you should lay off the scare tactics a touch.
Some homes have a TV and no licence.
All tv companies? Who? Where are say, Discovery or National Geographic's plans for IPTV? Or Sky to deliver Sky Sports 1 and 2 over IPTV?
Non-existant. Do you want to know why? Sky can effectively control satellite, via their NDS Videoguard encryption and EPG charges.
Why would they give that up, and go on a level playing field with perhaps thousands of channels over the internet?
Germany could simply be pre-empting a long term inevitability. That doesn't mean it will happen soon.
so if the whole point of a licence is for people to watch broadcast tv, why shouldn't people who choose to watch broadcast television over the internet need a licence?
and why do you assume they won't be watching any BBC tv - especially given that currently the BBC are the only broadcaster seriously going down this route?
Iain
A tax on information!
Be like adding VAT to books and newspapers.
TV over the Internet is never broadcast..
Pull the other one. Sky didn't spend a lot of money on Easynet, BT isn't spending a lot of money on IPTV, Ch4 didn't make their IT comedy available for download..
So every other broadcaster's already going down this road, and some new ones. The BBC's just following along.
And to clear up some other errors..
The actual number of unlicenced households is around 5%, or around 1.2 million. Some of those do the TV thing illegally, some are quite legally unlicenced.
If the BBC try to extend the licence to require if for having an Internet connection, it'd be quite a political event to behold.. Not to mention the potential for legal challenges.
Does the VAT on those all get given to one publisher?
So, even if you have a TV license you have to buy a cheaper IPTV license. I am sure most with IPTV have a TV license, and I don't object to them paying the damn thing aswell.
I am surpised we don't have an Internet license just because we can view the BBC website. Its the same principal, 'you pay us because you might use our services' - I am suprised the crack pot bunch have not got that running through government.
Anyhow, it was the Government that seemed to float the idea of a computer broadband tax in the Broadcasting Green Paper, rather than the BBC.
Everyone goes on about greed as if Mark Thompson drops a couple of million into his pocket every year. Does he?
How does his wage compare with others in the industry?
It isn't like they can give themselves dividends.
provided over the internet then. :rolleyes:
just following along?
which broadcaster is currently at the most advanced stage of this?
yes. and?
as you say...if.
given that people can currently legally own a tv without having a licence - if it's not connected to an aerial, dish or cable, and is soley used for DVDs or games...
...how likely do you really think it is that people will have to a have a licence for an internet connection anytime remotely soon?
...how likely do you think it is that many people will bin their televisions, and stick to watching stuff on their laptops?
Iain
I think you could argue that on several ground, one of which is quite topical
Firstly - you could argue that streaming clips or individual programmes does not of itself constitute a programme service.
Second - there is a difference between streaming and broadcast and you could argue that these are not broadcast services because the people watching the programme are not receiving it simultaneously (part of the definition of broadcast)
Thirdly - you could argue that a stream is only sent to one person so it's not a broadcast (part of the definition of broadcast being the transmission to two or more places) and you could argue that a stream is a two way service which would exclude it from the definition of programme services requiring a licence..
and finally, if you were slightly bonkers you could even try the Apple v Apple route of claiming that you're not receiving television programmes, you're just receiving data that your computer/box just happens to turn the data into a pictures & sound ... it's an interesting point, although I don't think it would work... but Homechoice may be carefully reading it as we speak lol
I'm not saying that the you wouldn't need a television licence but with even the most recent television licensing legislation being several years old the issue is not as clear cut as it may seem..
p.
Well, Homechoice obviously, and Kingston were with KIT, but not many people took the offer. Sky's ahead of BBC & they're both using virtually identical systems & will probably fail once people realise what using a peer-peer system will do to their Internet bills.. Leaving the way clear for BT, who've been waiting in the wings until the regulation allowed them to join in. And there's NTL/Telewest, who've already got a better IPTV capable infrastructure.. And there's plenty of other countries already further ahead.
I think the situation will change as soon as the BBC's revenues are impacted & it'll then start lobbying harder for something to change. I also think it would be hard to legislate..
How do you define it?
All internet connections must be covered by a TV licence? Not exactly fair, and would have exactly the same problems as current legislation, ie it's a 'catch all' regardless of actual use.
You must have a licence to watch TV over the Internet?
A little fairer, but falls into the problem of defining TV. Live TV, or VoD? What defines 'TV'? Would amateur channels be covered, webcams, video file sharing (legal ones)?
You must have a licence to watch BBC TV?
Easier, and could be protected by licence key & DRM.. but is too much like subscription for the BBC to swallow.
Or, the government realises it already pockets 17.5% VAT on every consumer Internet connection & it rips up the licence fee and pays the BBC via taxation instead.
(contrary to popular belief, the Charter does not guarantee the licence fee for the next 10 years, it's seperate legislation that defines it, and can easily be changed..)
But I suspect this is still some way off.. the numbers doing this are still pretty small & it'll be a while before IPTV is mainstream. My bet is 5-6 years minimum.
Why would they need to bin their TV's? Why do you think Microsoft, Apple, Sony & pretty much all our consumer electronics companies are moving towards media centre style solutions?
As others have said, the TV simply becomes a monitor & there'll be more ways & more choices of how to get stuff onto that screen.
It's one of those things I guess we'll never know without being privvy to the discussions between the DCMS & the BBC. It's been floated a few times for reasons such as paying for subsidised connections, monitoring & law enforcement etc.. But the industry generally just points at the VAT for the money. Not to mention most of the law enforcement costs get loaded onto the ISP's anyways for things like data retention.
But my bet is something will happen sooner than 10 years.. That's a long time in technology & some of these things are already gaining traction.
And on the Charter.. Did you read the draft version? If so, did you notice the 'Building Digital Britain' special purpose appears to have been very much watered down or removed.
The BBC, in its "Response to Green Paper" last year said:
"The BBC accepts that the definition of a 'television reciever' may need to change to accommadate advances in technology".
It adds that the tv licence should renamed to accomadate its extension to other devices.
What about people who choose NOT to watch broadcast tv over the net?!! Should they have to buy a tv licence as is now the case in Germany?