TV Times

I think we'd all like to see TV from anywhere at anytime, but who is going compensate for the loss of revenue? I doubt that imedded advertising would make up the shortfall.

Would this not also mean that the UK license payer is funding free TV for those outside of the UK in consideration of the iPlayer?

I fear that ultimately this could lead to marginalisation of some smaller players, and increased globalisation of some of the bigger ones, ending in an overall drop in quality of content.

Good editorial, but a difficult subject.

How are companies supposed to maximise revenues from their properties if they are globally accessible online? Convergence means that you can't legitimately seperate TV and online channels anymore, so what do you suggest, Global licensing deals? That's never going to happen - and if it did companies like the BBC would be big losers. This is pie in the sky, I expect more intelligent and reasoned debate from this site.

What is the BBC going to do when we all cease viewing broadcast transmissions and download programmes instead, as Riyad forsees? A TV licence is only required to view programmes as they are broadcast or streamed "live". You don't need a TV licence to download programmes after they have been broadcast. So I could take down my aerial, and just download my selected viewing and not pay the BBC any licence. Great, that is pretty much what I already do with radio, why not TV - beats channel surfing, means I only watch programmes I actually want to see rather than just veging in front of whatever is on. Good for my mind and wallet, but where is the revenue for Auntie?

Well here in Germany i have to still pay a TV licence if i have no TV but still own; a radio, a mobile phone capable of receiving radio or tv broadcasts, a computer connected to the internet, a game system with an internet connection &c. &c. &c.

Just because the current UK licence is worded in one way doesn't mean it isn't going to change. Germany only introduced the new wording after they began the digital switchover two years ago. People could have legitimately said, 'i only have an analogue tuner so can't watch TV, i'm not paying', thus they changed it and no everyone and his dog still has to pay, no excuses.

And as an expat myself, i would love the opportunity to pay a little extra for BBC iPlayer access from here, just like i do with my Sight & Sound subscription, but i can't so i either miss those great little shows that no one else transmits (HIGNFY for example) or end up having to wait for them to come on in spain and timing my holiday just right so i don't cave and end up watchign doctor who dubbed into German.

At what cost to other internet users, joe blogs being able to watch top gear. When will our poor UK network grind to a halt. Its all very well having the choice but will it slow the net down to dial up times ???

The UK needs better speeds, more local exchanges with faster connections, before stream TV can really work.

Martin touches on a related subject - is the TV licence an anachronistic way of raising revenue for public service broadcasting? Why not just fund public service broadcasting out of general government tax revenue. This would solve a number of these types of problems.

For people outside of the UK who want to watch BBC programmes should be able to.

The BBC do not advertise in the UK but if there is a demand for people wanting to watch outside of it, they could force those people to watch advertisements like on the videos on the sky sports website.

This could work both ways too.. if us Brits wanted to watch an American channel online.

Yes, that was exactly my understanding of it, and it would be especially useful for those who travel or live abroad. For example I live in Germany and all of terrestrial TV is dubbed into German, now my German is good enough that I can understand a show, but i don't really want to watch something like Dexter, where the accents set the scene, and have everyone speaking in some neutral german tone, if FX offered an overseas subscription i would take it, same for HBO and the BBC, but it isn't made easy for us and so those who can cicumvent the system do so and basically become criminals.

This, I feel, is the crux of it, until the networks and studios do get together and finally decide to see the world as a whole, rather than a series of disparate regions they can milk one after the other, people will always find a way to get what they want, whether it is importing R1 DVDs or downloading. With the internet bringing together citizens of every country in the world you now have places like the IMDB forums where an Englishman will be talking with a Brazillian and an American about the last episode of Lost. The only way the Englishman and the Brazilian would have seen the episode would be by illigal methods, but as fans, if they could have paid for it they would have, and chances are they'll buy the DVD boxset aswell.

The first network to realise that investing millions on keeping an aged business model going in today's massively changed world will, just like Apple with iTunes, lead the way to a better future. However I fear that we still won't see any move towards a new globally-oriented business model for content delivery for a long time yet. But just imagine what would happen if one television network invested the millions it spends annually on sniffing packets of data and sending out cease and desist letters on developing into a worldwide subscription-based television network. They would be simultaneously opening themselves up to currently closed markets and generating significant international publicitily merely by the fact that they are the first. I know i would sign up.

On the issue of the licence fee, isn't that changing in 2010 to encompass all devices capable of receiving a broadcast. That would also open up TV over internet too.

Back on topic, I'd certainly advocate a subscription service, but damned if I will pay to watch all the rubbish that is produced. I'd rather download a show or a series as a one-off.

This would also see a 'rationalisation' of smaller channels, and a proliferation of channels playing series that are 20 years old, and yet more quiz and shopping channels.

If this sort of service was available, I'd cancel my own Sky subscription because it would be pointless. I don't watch the Sports, and everything else would be available elsewhere quicker and cheaper, and yes, in HD too.

SSH tunnelling anyone?

And as Greg said, with the BBC and the licence fee, I don't really want other people getting it without paying for it too.

Yes, as an ex-pat, I would dearly love to be able to get the four major radio stations on my Sonos, but am relegated to BBC 6 and BBC 7 (can't complain too bitterly as BBC 7 is excellent in my opinion), let alone iPlayer or 4OD.
However, as Riyad touched upon in his article, the core of the problem is making sure people are consuming the material responsibly, and that means DRM.
Yes, everyone hates DRM (or claims to), but if they can make it transparent then there's no reason to fear. Sky tie their service to a specific PC? That's all well and good (especially in the days of netbooks), my concern is what happens when you want to upgrade your computer? I fell foul of this when I purchased music online with Janus encryption and had a hell of a time transferring it to my new laptop. It put me off on-line purchases forever, I only rip CDs now.
The fact is that this is only going to be solved by hardware (either built-in to a PC or as a USB dongle) as software has always crumbled under the hacker's scrutiny. The problem comes with getting people to accept paying for it.
I'd happily pay for a USB dongle to read a fingerprint or something to enable BBC content to me in Canada, but I can imagine uproar when a Brit goes on holiday and has to purchase a dongle just to keep up-to-datewith TV/Radio while away.

Even USB dongles can be faked though, lots of niche programs like Trados or some CAD suites use a dongle to not only supply the licence but specialist dictionaries and the like, the hackers just create a virtual dongle and you're away.

we have to move away from using DRM as a way of stopping piracy and create a situation in which it is far easier to get content via legal channels than it is to go down other routes. Surely the fact that buying music online has only become more popular since DRM-free versions of tracks became available illustrates this.

Riyad is absolutely right, I think. I'm from Ireland, and would happily pay the Beeb a subscription for access to the iPlayer. As it stands, like everyone else in Ireland, I get the Beeb for free (via Welsh and Northern Irish transmitters), but I'd be happy to pay for something like the iPlayer.

This would be a wholly new revenue stream for the Beeb, which could only bolster its purse-strings leading to more/better content or even a drop in the licence fee.

All it's going to take is for piracy to get to the point where networks realise that people's primary objection is not paying, but waiting. At that point, it becomes worth their while rethinking business models. But until then, expect dogged defence of an outmoded business model, coupled with much fingers-in-the-ears, yelling "La la la, I can't hear you!"

Some useful links regarding rights etc

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/download_programmes/outsideuk
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/tvlicence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer

The Kangaroo on-demand pay per view collaboration between the beeb. ITV, C4 and C5 should eventually offer a limited selection of programming made available internationally if it ever sees the light of day. Sky and Virgin are not happy with what they see as potentially unfair competition, hence a delay in development. All this gleaned from the iplayer messageboards (link provided above).

You have to understand contracts within TV productions. I quote from just four weeks ago:

The Screen Actors Guild on Thursday gave its most detailed explanation yet for its rejection of a final contract offer by Hollywood studios. In a letter to SAG’s 120,000 members, Doug Allen, the guild’s executive director, claimed the offer would allow nonunion actors into “almost all new media productions for the foreseeable future."
It said the producers’ offer also would leave out residual fees paid to actors for content that is retransmitted on the Web.

“A program originally made for ABC.com could be available for re-viewing on ABC.com ... as often as possible and forever with no residuals," Allen wrote. “The stakes are too high to concede."

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers responded with an equally detailed statement describing its Internet offer as “a major advancement" from the previous contract.

so it is all to do with contracts and negotiations..

And you can now see why the torrent scene is growing month on month. If I want to see the latest series & episodes such as Dexter, Grey's Anatomy etc, I (like many hundreds of thousands of other people) am not going to wait until the BBC or others feel I should. I can get free access to the latest episodes a few hours hours after they are first aired in the USA. It is so simple, safe, and more importantly free. I am not going to write a letter to Points of View or the Director-General of the BBC. That doesn't get my point across.

As Riyad ended his article, these companies need to 'wake up' to the current digital world otherwise they will end up in a situation similar to that of the music industry. I am not advocating free content for all, but if these TV shows were available on programs such as iplayer with a minimum of advertising I would be connecting to their service and not downloading a torrent.

It is people such as the torrent downloaders (and I am sure I am not the only one posting here) who are making these corporations sit up, take notice and plan for a future of more digital choice. More power to the people!