Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072805)

Right, enough. Thanks to the BBC3 announcement we now have 3 different threads all discussing the same issue. I have closed all of them.

*All* pointless arguments about whether the future of TV is in linear broadcasting, video on-demand, a mixture of both, or something as-yet uninvented, should now take place here.


The Today programme covered this this morning, from 8.20am if anyone fancies going on BBC Sounds (that’s about 2h 20m in). The essential point is that the EPG and the broadcast schedule work as a focal point, even amongst older teens and young adults for whom linear tv is supposedly of less interest. BBC Three suffered an 80% loss of engagement by going on-demand only. The broadcast schedule simply works better at reaching the target audience. That’s why they’re bringing it back.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36072672)

No it's your interpretation of what you think the Government will do in six years time. There's no manifesto commitment, no proposed legislation. Nothing but your hopes and dreams.

The 2025 broadband commitment is getting watered down so much the networks, particularly in rural areas, will not be up to it.

Then you're goosed until 2037. Better get shifting those goalposts again OB.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36072674)

No, 2027 is what he said. The Beeb confirmed a while ago that it was planning not to be using the existing transmitter system after the next licence fee review. The Culture Minister is saying he’s looking to abolish the licence fee from 2027.

As you always express a contrary view, I guess I must be on the right lines. You have nothing to back up your view, as usual.

---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:19 ----------



You need to read the article. He’s been mooting at doing this for sometime! It is only the broadband rollout that seems to be holding him back.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36072795)

I see no contradiction, jfman. The BBC document I was referring to talked about the BBC planning for internet only broadcasting by the mid-2030s. Hugh’s post seems to confirm that position.

Unless the government changes it’s position on this, I fully expect the 2027 review of the licence fee to require a move to a subscription model within the ensuing period.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36072820)

Be easier to nail down jelly I suspect, but certainly a good move by the mods to keep what is fundamentally the same discussion to a single thread.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36072825)

Might be better still if the mods closed down any thread where these type of arguments occur as soon as they appear.

Or more radically suspend the accounts of 1 or 2 posters?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36072818)

There appear to be some contradictions from a few of the final posts in the previous thread - can OLD BOY clarify, please?





Are the BBC planning not to use the existing transmitter system after the next licence fee review in 2027, or in the mid-2030s?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36072850)

3. As I understand it, the BBC is planning to cease broadcasting via the current transmitter system by the mid 2030s. Which neatly fits in with everything I’ve been saying for the last five years.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36072850)

Ok, I’ll bite.

There are no contradictions. On your specific points:

1. It’s jfman who’s suggesting 2037, not me. I am basing what I believe will happen on what the government has stated on broadband rollout. Clearly, if the government changes its position on this or fails to meet its target, that changes things. I cannot be responsible for that.

2. You have highlighted:

‘The Beeb confirmed a while ago that it was planning not to be using the existing transmitter system after the next licence fee review. The Culture Minister is saying he’s looking to abolish the licence fee from 2027.’

I presume you are focussing on that 2027 review date. At no point have I said the change from transmitter broadcasting will happen from that date. I have always said that should be in place by 2035. The licence fee review is likely to require the BBC to go to the subscription model (perhaps with an AVOD option) at some time during the period prior to the next licence fee review - probably within about five years of that date.

3. As I understand it, the BBC is planning to cease broadcasting via the current transmitter system by the mid 2030s. Which neatly fits in with everything I’ve been saying for the last five years.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36004881)

[/B]

I agree that the broadband infrastructure in the UK is inadequate but I don't see that as supporting your argument. The whole country should have fast broadband speeds in a few years. As I've said previously, the BBC is planning for a non-linear scheduled TV environment after the next licence fee review.

But I expect you know better than them. They really should have consulted you in the first place. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36072871)

You posted The next licence review is in 2027 - does it not logically follow that you’re stating that the BBC is planning not to use the existing transmitter system after 2027?

Can you provide a link to where the BBC stated they will not be utilising the existing transmitter network after the next licence review in 2027, please?

In fact, you stated on 04/08/2019 09:45

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=995

The next licence review is in 2027.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36072881)

Hugh, according to my calendar, 2035 falls after 2027.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by bbxxl (Post 36072892)

I think they should put programs on one after another and reduce it to, say, three channels.

They could have advertising on one of them, but no one would watch it, which would leave two for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Dude111 (Post 36072886)

Sadly Chris I think the future of TV is very bleak!!!

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072908)

So ... everyone back to 1981 then? :D

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072908)

So ... everyone back to 1981 then? :D

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36072883)

Not sure of your point?

You stated

If someone intends not to use something after a date (2027), surely that precludes using it from 2027 until 2035?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36072955)

I did not say 'immediately afterwards', Hugh. The article I was referring to said the Beeb was planning to do this in the 2030s, after the next licence fee review.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36072955)

I did not say 'immediately afterwards', Hugh. The article I was referring to said the Beeb was planning to do this in the 2030s, after the next licence fee review.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072957)

And yet still no link ...

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36072981)

There's this one.;)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014-0...r-the-internet

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072995)

A very interesting technical document, but with no proposed 'switch off' date for Freeview - whether 2027, 2035, or any other date Old Boy may or may not have floated at some point in this long and meandering discussion. ;)

As there is an ambition to eventually get high-speed data connections into every British home, IP delivery makes sense in the long run. There are various logistical challenges to overcome though, not least of which is ensuring the national grid has enough juice to power data networks that would be working exponentially harder than they do today.

And, lest we forget, if BBC One transmits its schedule over IP, with the News at 6, something with Nick Knowles at 8, drama at 9 and the news again at 10 ... that is still linear TV, regardless of what they're using to get the programme from their studio to your home.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072957)

And yet still no link ...

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36072978)

You are indulging in casuistry....

Someone states today "I won’t drink any alcohol after today".

Next day, someone spots them having a beer, and they say "I didn’t mean immediately after yesterday!".

Sure, Jan...

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36072995)

A very interesting technical document, but with no proposed 'switch off' date for Freeview - whether 2027, 2035, or any other date Old Boy may or may not have floated at some point in this long and meandering discussion. ;)

As there is an ambition to eventually get high-speed data connections into every British home, IP delivery makes sense in the long run. There are various logistical challenges to overcome though, not least of which is ensuring the national grid has enough juice to power data networks that would be working exponentially harder than they do today.

And, lest we forget, if BBC One transmits its schedule over IP, with the News at 6, something with Nick Knowles at 8, drama at 9 and the news again at 10 ... that is still linear TV, regardless of what they're using to get the programme from their studio to your home.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36072997)

Something from another thread last year, but relevant to this.

The future of DTT from The House of Lords Select Committee on Communications and Digital - 1st Report of Session 2019 - published 5th November 2019.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...muni/16/16.pdf

Pages 64-65


Their bold italics, not mine...

The relevance is that, at the moment, if you have a TV and an aerial (indoor or outdoor), you can watch Freeview TV at no extra expense, and with very little fuss (except for occasionally retuning the TV, and sometimes fiddling with the aerial if internal).

At the moment, 82% of the UK population have Broadband Access (not Internet Access, as people can have that through their smartphones) - under the IPTV delivery method (be it broadcast channels or SVOD, it's irrelevant), anyone without Broadband would be denied access to Freeview TV.

First issue, additional expense in purchasing Fixed Broadband so you can watch Freeview TV.

Next, if, like a lot of people, you have multiple TVs in your house, again, all you currently need is an aerial socket, or like me, the TVs in our bedroom and one of the other bedrooms just have a set-top aerial. If we had IP/Broadband delivered TV, people would need the wifi to be good enough, or network sockets, in those rooms.

Second issue, additional cost in setting up appropriate network/wifi connectivity to other TVs - especially in older houses with thick walls.

Then, what happens if the Broadband goes down? - no TV.
At the moment, if our Broadband goes down, we just go to the Digital channels, and carry on watching (if the programme is on Freeview, obviously). Or, over-utilisation or interference in your area could affect the quality of the programmes you are watching, due to the bandwidth being negatively affected/disrupted - remember the story late last year about a village having 18 months of slow speeds because of an old TV?

Third issue, if you lose your internet connection (or have it degraded), poor quality or no Freeview TV.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073035)

Yes, it's still linear, but you would access it differently. That is my point.
.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073041)

It only became your point after you comprehensively lost your original argument, which was that there is no future for linear tv channels. Remember how you used to go on and on about how much you loved setting up your to-watch lists and how brain-dead you thought people were who still preferred to switch on to an evening of curated programming from one of the established broadcasters? I know you do.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073035)

If I give up drinking in 2011 and my wife leaves me in 2016

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073049)

We've done to death the 'linear' argument, Chris. You know very well that I was using the word in the commonly used context, not in the strictly technical sense.

Once it became clear that some of you were interpreting linear in that way, and not to mean scheduled channels, I clarified that live programming would be streamed.

Do you seriously believe that I ever intended anyone to think we wouldn't be able to watch live sport, etc anymore? Don't be daft!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073049)

We've done to death the 'linear' argument, Chris. You know very well that I was using the word in the commonly used context, not in the strictly technical sense.

Once it became clear that some of you were interpreting linear in that way, and not to mean scheduled channels, I clarified that live programming would be streamed.

Do you seriously believe that I ever intended anyone to think we wouldn't be able to watch live sport, etc anymore? Don't be daft!

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073058)

There go the goalposts, cheerfully cantering down the tunnel and out of the stadium ...

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073060)

Pretty sure no one who disagreed with your proposition defined linear to mean anything other than "a schedule of programmes" - if they did, they were in a very small minority...

However, in Nov 2019, Chris said



you said

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...r#post36018715

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073063)

So OB which is it by 2035?

The traditional broadcast systems - terrestrial and satellite (I’ll leave cable to the side to avoid confusion), scheduled channels or all of the above?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073071)

There’s no contradiction. The pre-recorded programmes would be on demand and the live programmes would be streamed. Obviously, each live stream would start when the live action started (as it does now on Amazon).

The use of the word ‘linear’ was meant to refer to our traditional TV channels. It was widely described in this way on the internet at that time. Unfortunately, I didn’t bargain for all the nit-picking that would result from this on the forum. Silly me.

Anyway, let’s move on. All of that was five years ago. Time to get over it. It’s much more interesting to talk about various scenarios that may transpire in the coming years.

Except for those who cannot bear the thought that all those channel numbers might actually disappear over the next decade or so and don’t want to even try to imagine that.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------



Baiting again, jfman?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073071)

There’s no contradiction. The pre-recorded programmes would be on demand and the live programmes would be streamed. Obviously, each live stream would start when the live action started (as it does now on Amazon).

The use of the word ‘linear’ was meant to refer to our traditional TV channels. It was widely described in this way on the internet at that time. Unfortunately, I didn’t bargain for all the nit-picking that would result from this on the forum. Silly me.

Anyway, let’s move on. All of that was five years ago. Time to get over it. It’s much more interesting to talk about various scenarios that may transpire in the coming years.

Except for those who cannot bear the thought that all those channel numbers might actually disappear over the next decade or so and don’t want to even try to imagine that.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------



Baiting again, jfman?

Originally Posted by bbxxl (Post 36072938)

Channel 4 was the start of the decline...

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36073103)

No, Sky and satellite/cable tv was start of the decline. We wanted quantity over quality and we got it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073086)

This is exactly why I'm trying to pin down the definition of linear which OB refuses to deliver.

Originally Posted by buckeye (Post 36073234)

This isn't about the future of television but as the Netflix/Streaming Services thread is now closed with people redirected to this thread I guess this is the place to post streaming service news.......

Starzplay are currently offering a deal of 6 months at £1:99 a month and Eurosport are offering a 12 month sub for £19:99.

If its inappropriate to share this news here please can a mod tell me where I should share it now the natural home for such news has closed its doors?

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36073202)

Google is your friend ;

:D

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073248)

I'm 100% on board with that definition.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073252)

I think most people are, and quite a lot of us have posted something similar... :)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073260)

I think there are two separate, legitimate discussions to be had. However they are entirely separate, as scheduled linear over IP is still linear. :)

Richard has raised the most pertinent point about DTT - it'd likely to be scaled back, maintaining a baseline, rather than one big switch off.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073082)

But that isn’t what we are saying - we are saying there will still be (delivered by IPTV, DTT, or whatever) a regular schedule of programmes, running throughout the morning, day, and evening, running on after each other, just like now - there may not be as many channels as now, but there will a reasonable number.

That is completely different from "The pre-recorded programmes would be on demand and the live programmes would be streamed. Obviously, each live stream would start when the live action started".

I think they will co-exist, not be mutually exclusive...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073381)

But as Hugh’s definition clarifies, it’s not recordable over IP.

---------- Post added at 20:08 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------



I think what will happen is that programmes will appear on designated days, just like on other streamers. Only the live stuff will commence at a particular time later in the day.

You’ve only got to look at Amazon to see how this is likely to work.

Yes, it’s just a different method of delivery, but I have never claimed otherwise. But the way we access the content will feel very different from now.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073384)

Eh?

You can already record IPTV...

https://www.simplehelp.net/2019/12/1...n-iptv-stream/

ON your second point, you’re still saying there won’t be a daily schedule of timed programmes running one after another (like we have now), just scheduled live "stuff"?

I beg to disagree.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073381)

But as Hugh’s definition clarifies, it’s not recordable over IP.

---------- Post added at 20:08 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------



I think what will happen is that programmes will appear on designated days, just like on other streamers. Only the live stuff will commence at a particular time later in the day.

You’ve only got to look at Amazon to see how this is likely to work.

Yes, it’s just a different method of delivery, but I have never claimed otherwise. But the way we access the content will feel very different from now.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36073388)

Yes Hugh you can record an IPTV stream manually and not just through VLAN. Now be a good little boy and go research how to set up IPTV linear stream program in advance.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073394)

I'm sure whoever provides the set top boxes of the future will help out here.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073384)

Eh?

You can already record IPTV...

https://www.simplehelp.net/2019/12/1...n-iptv-stream/

ON your second point, you’re still saying there won’t be a daily schedule of timed programmes running one after another (like we have now), just scheduled live "stuff"?

I beg to disagree.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36073388)

Yes Hugh you can record an IPTV stream manually and not just through VLAN. Now be a good little boy and go research how to set up IPTV linear stream program in advance.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36073397)

I have no doubt but you cannot at present which I think OB was alluding to.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36073397)

I have no doubt but you cannot at present which I think OB was alluding to.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073384)

Eh?

You can already record IPTV...

https://www.simplehelp.net/2019/12/1...n-iptv-stream/

ON your second point, you’re still saying there won’t be a daily schedule of timed programmes running one after another (like we have now), just scheduled live "stuff"?

I beg to disagree.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073391)

So in other words you still think that linear TV will end, with the extremely limited exception of stuff that can’t physically be supplied any other way because it’s live. You think no broadcaster would actually choose to make any content available according to a strict linear schedule.

Or am I misunderstanding you again? Perhaps put it this way: do you or do you not think that Eastenders and Coronation Street will continue to be made available at a set time each weekday evening?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073400)

Well that's the challenge with OBs predictions - it's hard to pin down exactly what he means because he refuses to answer straightforward questions that would assist others in understanding his intent.

The likelihood is cloud recording, to the extent recording exists at all, would replace local recording on a STB over time. In which case all you are really doing is streaming 'on demand'. Of course that doesn't mean that linear television won't exist at all.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073440)

Oh, yeah, I can well imagine the multitudes doing that!

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ----------



Obviously, that could happen, but I think it is far more likely that these programmes will be loaded at the same time each morning. Why would they load the day’s programmes to an on demand system in dribs and drabs? Only the live streams are likely to be available from a later time in the day or evening, I would have thought.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073446)

I thought you were the one who thought solutions could be found for everything?

btw, I was only showing that IPTV could be recorded, not recommending it... ;)

As was said earlier, by 2035, I would imagine most recordings are kept in the "cloud", however they are delivered/retained.

(Be a beggar when t’internet goes down - no TV, no recordings to watch)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073471)

Agreed, although I think these would be bookmarks rather than recordings, wouldn't they?

I also agree that with no internet, there would be no TV. That would certainly be a bummer.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073481)

It's the percentage of people who don't want/need internet that would suddenly be paying £30+ for full fibre just to get a minimum TV service that's the issue.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073493)

Yup. As long as public service broadcasting is a principle upheld in UK legislation, there will have to be a way of delivering it that’s free to receive.

Far too many people have so far failed to grasp the implications of public service broadcasting, especially on the Tory right where there’s a tendency to make simplistic and wholly false connections between the TV license and Netflix-style subscriptions. The only way the BBC is going to go behind a paywall is if it is relieved of its PSB obligations. And if the BBC is no longer a public service broadcaster, why should ITV, Channel 4 and Five want to continue to be saddled with those obligations?

A public service broadcaster has to be free-to-view, otherwise it’s not providing a public service. It really is that simple.

If the future is in IP delivery then we either abandon public service broadcasting or we put a service obligation on telecoms companies to provide IP-based TV streams for free. That’s a lot to ask.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36073497)

But the BBC falls under the umbrella of a public service broadcaster and it is not free to watch BBC channels

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36073507)

You originally and me in response said "Free" having to pay for a licence removes the free part. That is all I meant. The rest of your explanation I knew. Personally I would be happy for the BBC to start advertising and save the £15 a month I have to pay to watch Eastenders for a bottle of Gin

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 36073512)

I think it's slightly inaccurate to say the BBC is free. It isn't. Nothing is. I think it's more accurate to say that, like the NHS and most of the Road network, the BBC is free at the point of use.

Personally, I think the BBC is generally good. I think they've become a little too frightened of offending the government, which is bad as I think we need a public broadcaster that is free and willing to openly hold those who govern to account, and the BBC is repeatedly failing at that task. Apart from that, they are good, and I am happy to pay my licence fee.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36073516)

I never said the BBC is free Chris did I said it wasn't free

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073518)

And it is, in the sense I clarified when you asked. ;)

The disconnection between payment for, and access to, the BBC's services is evident in its website, its radio output and even its TV service as long as you only access that content after broadcast.

The TV licence is not a BBC subscription, it is a licence to operate a TV receiver. I appreciate the difference is subtle, but in the context of this discussion it's relevant.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36073542)

This wouldn't have turned in to the billionth licence fee thread on CF would it? ;)

Amazes how so many moan about £13 a month for mostly new content, and pay VM/Sky £100 a month for mostly repeats. True its a universal charge which is why its so low. We need a public service broadcaster that isn't relevant on advertising, or we wouldn't get risk taking or programmes commercial channels wouldn't make.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36073542)

This wouldn't have turned in to the billionth licence fee thread on CF would it? ;)

Amazes how so many moan about £13 a month for mostly new content, and pay VM/Sky £100 a month for mostly repeats. True its a universal charge which is why its so low. We need a public service broadcaster that isn't relevant on advertising, or we wouldn't get risk taking or programmes commercial channels wouldn't make.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073493)

Yup. As long as public service broadcasting is a principle upheld in UK legislation, there will have to be a way of delivering it that’s free to receive.

Far too many people have so far failed to grasp the implications of public service broadcasting, especially on the Tory right where there’s a tendency to make simplistic and wholly false connections between the TV license and Netflix-style subscriptions. The only way the BBC is going to go behind a paywall is if it is relieved of its PSB obligations. And if the BBC is no longer a public service broadcaster, why should ITV, Channel 4 and Five want to continue to be saddled with those obligations?

A public service broadcaster has to be free-to-view, otherwise it’s not providing a public service. It really is that simple.

If the future is in IP delivery then we either abandon public service broadcasting or we put a service obligation on telecoms companies to provide IP-based TV streams for free. That’s a lot to ask.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36073559)

I am on Freesat and download a lot of the TV I watch off usenet

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073570)

Public service broadcasting itself is under review. By the way, once broadband is fully rolled out, there is no reason the Beeb could not go IPTV, even if public service broadcasting obligations are retained.

As things stand now, you need a TV, plus an aerial or a TV subscription (via Sky, BT, VM, Talk Talk, etc), and of course you need electricity. It’s certainly not free. Why is the internet any different? It is pretty well a necessity in the modern world.

This article is quite interesting in terms of current audience preferences.

https://www.rapidtvnews.com/20210307...adcast-tv.html

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073574)

We have to pay the licence fee. I would like the choice, but there is no other option if I want to watch TV.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36073571)

Somebody, somewhere, has to pay for those programmes you download to be made, and Freesat is provided as a PSB by the BBC and ITV...

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

People who want to sell advertising on streaming TV produce poll that shows it’s worth advertising on streaming TV...

But 18 million homes at the moment have the choice not to have any subscription - you want to take that choice away from them...

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073575)

This is because Parliament has determined that a well-funded national broadcaster is the best means of ensuring a guaranteed depth and breadth of quality programming.

It’s easy to assume that American style TV would be great for the UK given the quality of much the stuff that is imported here, however we only see a small fraction of what actually fills airtime in the USA and trust me, an average evening on an average channel on American TV is horrific. It’s dross, mostly cheap talking head news magazines and fairly constant commercial breaks.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36073576)

Public service broadcasting may well be "under review".

That doesn't mean it will cease to exist. The discussion centres around how and where it's provisioned. Nobody is proposing to remove it from the millions of homes that can't get (or don't want) an expensive fibre broadband package.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36073502)

This is where the fine distinction between a subscription and a licence comes in.

You need a licence to operate equipment that receives TV broadcasts. That definition has been fudged slightly so that for IP delivery, you only need the licence to use iPlayer to view programmes as broadcast. You don't need the licence for other IP players and you don't need it to view BBC content stored in the iPlayer for catch up viewing.

Further, unlike a subscription, paying the licence fee does not create a contractual obligation between you and the BBC. If you pay Sky for service and they don't provide it, you have redress under the Sale of Goods Act. If you buy a TV licence and then find, for whatever reason, you can't receive BBC transmissions, then you have no redress at all.

The fact that the BBC is the organisation that collects and spends the licence fee is what leads to the false comparisons with TV companies that operate via subscription. But to make that comparison is to fail to understand the legal distinctions that have been made. These may seem esoteric but they're actually very important for understanding where we are, and the very real legislative issues that will need to be overcome if in future we're going to opt for something else.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36073582)

Quite, but whatever, the Culture Secretary wants to convert the TV licence into a BBC subscription model, which surely is why we are having this debate.

I’m sure that the last thing we want is to follow the path of American TV, but we have better options than that.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36073578)

Loads of people on the forum watch TV on the US Timeline so have to "Pirate" it in some way or another. If I had not seen it posted about then I would not have said anything

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36075244)

TV licence here to 2038 in the absence of any other good ideas.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...d-bbc-2038-mps