Information wants to be monetised

[andrewducker]

Rupert Murdoch has been saying that he wants to take his toys (large chunks of the worldwide newspaper market) and stick them behind paywalls, as advertising doesn't pay enough to keep them afloat.

The problem with this being that I don't know more than three people who would actively pay for access to newspapers. Unless every paper in the world did it at once there'd be a rush of readers from the walled-off papers to the free ones. And if they all did it at once then the Monopolies Commission might have something to say about it.

In addition, I don't tend to read any one online site to the exclusion of others - I read bits of a number of them, and follow links to numerous others. The only way of dealing with this would seem to be microtransactions, which nobody has managed to make profitable yet.

Frankly, I can see paywalls working when it comes to sites providing something that you can't get elsewhere (the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal being good examples of this), but being a recipe for disaster when it comes to most newspapers.

I'm open to persuasion though...

[Poll #1440934]

Comments

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I can't see myself paying for online news so long as we have the BBC providing it for free. If that option were removed then possibly. The only news content I can see myself paying for would be to a specific technical website, but that is getting into magazine territory rather than that of typical newspapers.

[andrewducker]

They'd have to get rid of The Metro as well (I know this mostly applies to cities).

[chuma.livejournal.com]

You ARE paying for it with a license fee.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Not me, I don't have a TV license but I can still access the BBC news website.

Edit: Should I want to. Which, unless I'm linked there from my flist, I generally don't.

[andrewducker]

Same is true of forriners, of course, who are free to access it without paying.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Naturally. I just take great pleasure in the fact I don't have a TV licence.

[feorag.livejournal.com]

And it being true of foreigners means that us Brits can still access the BBC News even when we're out of the continent.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. Something the BBC want to continue, I understand.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Yes, but it IS paid for is what I mean, maybe not by your personally, but by other people than the company.

Question from the American:

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

What is a TV license? How much is it and what does it provide?

Re: Question from the American:

[andrewducker]

You have to have one in the UK if you own a TV that can receive broadcasts.

It costs £150 a year.

It pays for the BBC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Re: Question from the American:

[marrog.livejournal.com]

You have to have one in the UK if you own a TV that can receive broadcasts.

Assuming that it's plugged into an aerial.

Re: Question from the American:

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

Re: Question from the American:

[marrog.livejournal.com]

You need a TV License if you're using a television to receive a TV signal of any kind, through any source. It originally just funded the BBC, but various channels including all the other terrestrial channels (Ch4, Ch5, ITV) now get a cut.

Ostensibly it keeps the BBC a non-commercial channel - they don't have adverts, except between shows for their own programming. You are legally and functionally able to access the five UK terrestrial channels with your TV License. For any more than that you pay your satellite and digital and cable subscriptions as you would expect. You can of course get these channels anyway, but if you're found to be dodging your license you incur a hefty fine.

The license costs I think about £140 now, although last I checked you could pay less for a BW TV, and pensioners get it free or vastly reduced, can't remember which. The commonly believed - and intentionally perpetrated through careful wording in threatening letters, is that you have to have a license if you own a television, the onus being on you to prove beyond a doubt that you weren't using it to receive a signal, the implication being that this would be impossible.

In practice, however, I've recently discovered that although you confuse everyone you speak to at the licensing call centre, you can in fact with minimum fuss refuse to pay your license on the grounds that you don't watch TV, and once they've visited and established that your TV isn't plugged into an aerial (I sabotage the plug on my aerial cable for good measure) they take you off their shit list and go away quietly. For once the aphorism that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear actually holds true.

Re: Question from the American:

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the answer. I think if such a thing were to be implemented in America, there'd be riots and then we'd vote the survivors out of office.

Re: Question from the American:

[andrewducker]

It dates back from a point where there was only one channel in the UK - BBC Radio - and it was run by the government.

If we were starting from scratch we almost certainly wouldn't end up with one now.

Re: Question from the American:

[andrewducker]

So far as I understand the money goes solely to the BBC - except for a small amount to S4C for Welsh programming (which is made by the BBC and given to them).

There have been pushes to have some of it go to other companies as well - but that hasn't happened yet - except for C4 getting some money to help with the digital switch-over.

Re: Question from the American:

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Really? I thought the other terrestrials were getting a little now. Must have heard the wrong thing somewhere.

Re: Question from the American:

[andrewducker]

It's been proposed by the government, as part of their digital review, but nothing has happened with it so far - it'll be happening from 2013 or something.

Personally, I think there needs to be a massive change in the BBC's responsibilities. More highbrow stuff, for a start.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Well yes, but it's not exactly the same as paying to access a specific news website. I could stop paying my licence fee and still access the BBC website for free.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Nope. No TV. No licence. :-)