andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2022-12-08 12:00 pm
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)

[personal profile] simont 2022-12-08 12:06 pm (UTC)(link)
#3 requires registration to get past the first paragraph, so I didn't read the whole thing. But what does this imply for the licence fee?

If TV is delivered over the Internet instead of via broadcast, then presumably the simple thing is to turn the licence fee into an online subscription that unlocks your credentials to connect to the streaming server. Pro: enormous amount of effort saved on TV licence enforcement, and no further need for special legal support from the government.

If that happened, the BBC would presumably become just another streaming service alongside all the existing ones, competing with them on an equal basis. One wonders if they'd have any remaining reason to not pursue profit at the expense of public-service considerations, e.g. any impartiality they might have left!
bens_dad: (Default)

[personal profile] bens_dad 2022-12-08 12:30 pm (UTC)(link)
If the licence fee becomes optional but required for viewing the BBC will be no different from other streaming services and will lose a lot of subscribers - O(half the population).

Who is going to invest in the bandwidth for wireless internet throughout every A road, never mind every country lane ?
Bye-bye in car radio.

Though if someone *is* prepared to put 5G *with multicast IP* (so that the bandwidth on motorways isn't all taken up with 10K copies of the same radio channel) and/or a national wifi service (like Slovenia) with >95% coverage by area, great.
mellowtigger: (money)

[personal profile] mellowtigger 2022-12-09 03:29 am (UTC)(link)
The best "money" (/capitalist corruption) question for this change is, "Who's getting paid for the newly available spectrum, and what is the buyer doing with it?" The many social downsides are totally irrelevant to whoever is leveraging their own wealth from the change.