While we all wish that the American FTA scene was more like the European one, the European model is in danger:
BBC NEWS | Technology | BBC looks to copy protect content
BBC NEWS | Technology | BBC looks to copy protect content
American-style thinking infects the UK
- Thread starter Jim S.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 22
- Views 4K
- Status
Register to hide this ad
What do they worry that people are going to do with the content? Burn it to disc and sell it on eBay? Or merely watch it when it's convenient?
I don't get the HD argument. I mean, HD is great, but to me it's just another technological advancement, same as color was, same as stereo was, etc. I lived through both and don't remember any similar fear or distrust. HD is the new SD is all it is.
I wonder which content providers the Beeb is referring to? With the recent net neutrality talks on this side of the pond, I get the impression that cable thinks it really is a wicked witch with water thrown on it, "I'm melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world!"
Because it's gotten so cheap, some of the most trivial video is now shot in HD -- appearing on Youtube -- yet HD is still considered some premium thing in the world of subscription television.
Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HD) is in development, and maybe what we have today will soon be eclipsed. Wonder what the roll out of that will be like? Wonder how much the multichannel folks can water it down and still call it Ultra?
I don't get the HD argument. I mean, HD is great, but to me it's just another technological advancement, same as color was, same as stereo was, etc. I lived through both and don't remember any similar fear or distrust. HD is the new SD is all it is.
I wonder which content providers the Beeb is referring to? With the recent net neutrality talks on this side of the pond, I get the impression that cable thinks it really is a wicked witch with water thrown on it, "I'm melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world!"
Because it's gotten so cheap, some of the most trivial video is now shot in HD -- appearing on Youtube -- yet HD is still considered some premium thing in the world of subscription television.
Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HD) is in development, and maybe what we have today will soon be eclipsed. Wonder what the roll out of that will be like? Wonder how much the multichannel folks can water it down and still call it Ultra?
Wow.. $300+ per year to simply own a TV. Fees on Radios too? I couldn't possibly afford to pay to license all of my TVs and Radios. Paying for XM Radio is more than enough for me..
Wikipedia says it's $227 (£142.50) per year per household, no matter how many sets, just under $19 per month.
In the USA we pay much less in taxes for PBS and the operating expenses for the FCC, but we do pay, in a hidden way. Don't forget, when people talk about FTA in Europe, it's a whole broader category than just the UK's Freeview. And Freeview is no slouch in what they offer if you consider the license fee to be their price.
It is per household, and not per TV.
Here in Canada it is the same, it is hidden in the general taxes gathered both federally (CBC) and provincially (TVOntario for us in Ontario).
Plus.. We now have the LPIF fee showing up on the cable/satellite bills.. My last BellTV bill that just showed up has the "Contribution Fee to CRTC's LPIF" (Local Programming Improvement Fund)
I received an email from Rogers (because I have Rogers Hi-Speed Internet) warning all cable subscribers that the CRTC is re-opening discussions on Fees for Carriage.. We may all end up paying cable/satellite bills, and fees galore that add up to the UK standard.
I guess that's why I have been starting to tinker with Over-The-Air reception to go along with my FTA viewing. I'd like to eventually get away from subscription TV altogether (or keep it minimal).
Me too brother....I just put up a 7' Lafayette UHF parabolic dish and will motorize it next year.
Greed is so rampant at the CEO level that all forms of fees are being added to wireless and other services. It would not surprise me to see DN go after the FTA signals. Government does not help to balance matters but makes them possible due in large part to the lobbyest.
Our household is 100% FTA, and most of what DN could take away wouldn't destroy us. It does surprise me how anti-competitive in spirit the industry appears to be, made me laugh when someone from cable said that they didn't want to appear in collusion (or words to that effect) when planning a joint agreement between cable, sat, and other subscription services to make an end run around hulu and other emerging online free tv ventures.
FTA only, how can that be? Well, for example, if there's a football game I want to watch I go to my elderly father's house and watch with him, OTA. TV used to bring families together, and still can in some cases.
Last edited:
100% FTA and OTA here as well. We do have a Tivo subscription. Between what my receiver records from the sat and what we set up Tivo to record from the networks, we have more than enough entertainment.
As for sports, college football is my big weakness, but the majority of what I want to watch (SEC!!) is on OTA or there are ku feeds.
The Star Choice bill doesn't have the LPIF listed on it (yet). And don't get me started on the Fees For Carriage (what a huge money grab) as my blood starts to boil! I think we already pay more in taxes and fees than the UK standard, and don't get anywhere near the type of programming that the BBC produces.
The government needs to step in BEFORE dishnet has a monopoly. But, they gave Microsoft free reign and now Microsoft has essentially all of the PC business. In other words, the government steps in to close the door after the horse already got out. The same thing will happen if DN gets their way. And don't get me started with the SHVA. :rant:
Yeah, I lived in the UK for about 3 years and me and my military buddies got a laugh at having to pay a license fee to "own" a TV.
I've done just that. I've got an OTA antenna out back just behind the BUD. No digital here yet so there's a bit of ghosting but it's free.
No monthly bill is great.
Yes, we do have to pay £130-odd per year per household to watch broadcast TV. (note what I said - if you want to use it as a monitor for a VCR, DVD player or games console you don't need a licence. If you want to use a DVB-T box for access to digital radio, you don't need a licence. There are other exceptions too).
The TV Licensing authority are pretty toothless when it comes to enforcing the law, unless you're blatantly watching broadcast TV in your front room.
As for what the licence fee pays for? It pays for the news site you linked to, and it also pays for a lot of the British stuff you see on PBS and on other channels (Top Gear, anyone?). I can't say I don't mind paying ~£10 a month to get one of the best broadcasters in the world.
The TV Licensing authority are pretty toothless when it comes to enforcing the law, unless you're blatantly watching broadcast TV in your front room.
As for what the licence fee pays for? It pays for the news site you linked to, and it also pays for a lot of the British stuff you see on PBS and on other channels (Top Gear, anyone?). I can't say I don't mind paying ~£10 a month to get one of the best broadcasters in the world.
OK. Interesting... People don't have to pay... if you hide your TV in a back room... Or, use the TV for games, VCR, DVD... wink, wink, nudge, nudge, nod, nod, say no more..
So then, stories about licence avoidance patrols roaming the streets with detection equipment in order to enforce TV license tax fees are inaccurate? Just an annoyance, I gather then...
Review of these scenarios makes me feel better about PBS begathon fundraising drives.
So then, stories about licence avoidance patrols roaming the streets with detection equipment in order to enforce TV license tax fees are inaccurate? Just an annoyance, I gather then...
Review of these scenarios makes me feel better about PBS begathon fundraising drives.
Last edited:
Their enforcement consists of sending nastygrams that you are quite free to ignore (even if you are breaking the law), and inspectors who may visit (who you aren't required to let in, unless they have a warrant - so again, unless you're blatantly watching broadcast TV in the front room, the chances of getting caught are unlikely). Over the years the BBC hasn't ever once confirmed or denied that the vans are nothing more than decoys. They are more there for creating fear (for those who are supposed to buy a licence, not the ones who are using a TV for a reason that doesn't need a licence.).
They know who doesn't have a licence because they've bought the address database from the Royal Mail, and obviously have a database of who has a current licence. Those who are on the RM database and not the other get nastygrams.
As for that wink wink, nod nod business. It isn't dodgy if you really are using a TV as a monitor (or a digital TV box for radio) - if you cared to view the TV Licensing site you'll see it is very much allowed. I'd link but it is an incredibly long link that probably relies on sessions:
Note that it says "you can tell us" and "may visit". Telling them to shut up is very much optional.
The fee technically only pays for the BBC (and the digital switchover costs for Channel 4), but this may change in the future.
The list linked to isn't quite exhaustive. This is because some channels, while FTA, are not part of "Freeview" because the channel's owner is not in the Freeview consortium. There are also interactive services not in the list.
Don't forget Freesat (an effort to produce a DVB-S/S2 box with proprietary EPG designed to be easy to use to setup and use. Only has genuine FTA channels) too.
- Status
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
TCEDIA Lifetime Achievement Awards: Heroes of AV! #shorts
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network
