Free TV licence scrapped for (most) over 75-s

[Typhoon]

It used to be that you might get an ad before the video began, and you could hit a "Skip Ad" button after about 5 seconds. Now you also get them at entirely random points during the video, and these do not have a "Skip" option. Then for the first time ever yesterday I got two ads back-to-back in the middle of a video.

That is what is really irritating. At least with the TV it is the end of a scene or something, it can become difficult to pick up the thread after the advert.
Also the same ads keep repeating - there are annoying ones for an expensive gastropub fairly near me, the longest is over 3 minutes, the others are just cut down versions of the same thing, usually over 2 minutes. Its usually the second one on at the start, don't bother watching it anymore.

 

[big all]

i have 2 freeview recorders and record all tv content except bbc current affairs programs that i will watch live
i never watch adverts from any source other than maybe 5-10 seconds as my reactions get slower as you get older

 

[LOL The Irony]

It used to be that you might get an ad before the video began, and you could hit a "Skip Ad" button after about 5 seconds. Now you also get them at entirely random points during the video, and these do not have a "Skip" option. Then for the first time ever yesterday I got two ads back-to-back in the middle of a video. I stopped watching then.

Get an ad blocker.

 

[ainsworth74]

Get an ad blocker.

But don't forget to white list your friendly local Railway Forum that's funded by adverts!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It used to be that you might get an ad before the video began, and you could hit a "Skip Ad" button after about 5 seconds. Now you also get them at entirely random points during the video, and these do not have a "Skip" option. Then for the first time ever yesterday I got two ads back-to-back in the middle of a video. I stopped watching then.

I agree, it is an annoying. Although realistically, it's probably not unreasonable as a response to the problem that people are getting less likely to click through on adverts, and the people who spend time and (possibly) money making videos for youtube do need to get paid somehow. I think the real problem is - once again - our expectation that we get lots of content for free, ignoring that the people who make the content do need to make a living.

If it bothers you enough, Youtube does actually offer a "Youtube premium" option to pay to get rid of all adverts. Google even claims that the majority of the revenue from it does go to the content creators based on how much their videos are watched - although annoyingly, they don't as far as I can see say what percentage that is. Link

Currently, new revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, the majority of the revenue will go to creators.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Get an ad blocker.

I don't think that's really ethical for something like Youtube, where the ads, though annoying, are not unreasonable given the need to pay content creators for their efforts. And I'm not sure an ad-blocker would work for the kind of in-video ads that Youtube do anyway.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't think that's really ethical for something like Youtube, where the ads, though annoying, are not unreasonable given the need to pay content creators for their efforts. And I'm not sure an ad-blocker would work for the kind of in-video ads that Youtube do anyway.

Most the creators I'm subsctribed to get de-monetised anyways so youtube is doing that job for me. Also an ad blocker does work on youtube.

 

[Lucan]

I don't think [an ad blocker] really ethical for something like Youtube, ... are not unreasonable given the need to pay content creators for their efforts. And I'm not sure an ad-blocker would work for the kind of in-video ads that Youtube do anyway.

I believe that the in-line ads are effectively a part of the video and cannot be blocked. However, with an ad-blocker I do see empty outline rectangles appearing at the bottom of the screen now-and-then which I suppose are ads trying to get there.

As for being unethical, I am doing them a favour by blocking their ads because I react very negatively to them. I will make a point of avoiding a product if it has intruded ads on me. For example I have one of those big paperback road atlases in my car and on the back there is a ad for Karcher pressure washers where there ought be the key to the map pages. As it is I have to find Page 5 or something (past other ads) for that key , and it annoys me every time. When I did buy a pressure washer it was a Black and Decker. The very name "Karcher" now irritates me any time I see it, Pavlov dog style. I also realise how much money they are paying for ads instead of on product quality.

 

[Clip]

There are other platforms instead of Youtube that dont have the adsd halfway through what you are watching but woth Youtube being the biggest they get the views which makes sense for people to put their content on there.

Of course there is always the option of your own site but that then costs the creator no matter the adverts on there

 

[Busaholic]

Is it not the case that many years ago, a considerable number of married women who were in employment at that time only paid an employees lower state pension contribution rate applicable to their marital status and many of these women only now receive a lower rate of state pension, not haven taken the opportunity in later life to pay extra contributions to bring their state pension rate to par?

Belated straight answer to a straight question, yes, one could opt as a married woman to make a reduced payment, typically 5.85% of the relevant earnings band as opposed to 12% full rate. It was withdrawn to new entrants in 1977 but you could opt to continue in it. The woman is basically entitled to a pension rate equivalent to 60% of their husband's BUT ONLY ON HIS RETIREMENT: so my wife, who was one such, had to wait until she was 63 and a bit, until I hit 65.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Johnson's comment about the continuation of universal free TV licences for the over 75s funded by the BBC after 2020 will be well received by that particular age group.

 

[anme]

Johnson's comment about the continuation of universal free TV licences for the over 75s funded by the BBC after 2020 will be well received by that particular age group.

The transfer of wealth from the young to the old continues.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The transfer of wealth from the young to the old continues.

More like the transfer of wealth from the BBC.

 

[dosxuk]

More like the transfer of wealth from the BBC.

If the Government want to fund such things, then the Government should fund them. I'm hoping the BBC actually grow a backbone and call Boris a liar publicly for his attempts to rewrite history here.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the Government want to fund such things, then the Government should fund them. I'm hoping the BBC actually grow a backbone and call Boris a liar publicly for his attempts to rewrite history here.

Where did you get the idea that the Government wanted to fund this project?

I cannot really believe that people see the BBC these days as a revered institution seen through pre-WWII eyes. For example, in trying to compete with other broadcasters, it set up and established BBC3 then took that channel off the normal viewing mode and still have management who feel their organisation is somewhat above the normally accepted intelligence standards of the population at large, as often seen when one of their senior production management appear on "Points of View" responding to raised criticism in a "headmaster knows best" fashion.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Where did you get the idea that the Government wanted to fund this project?

I cannot really believe that people see the BBC these days as a revered institution seen through pre-WWII eyes. For example, in trying to compete with other broadcasters, it set up and established BBC3 then took that channel off the normal viewing mode and still have management who feel their organisation is somewhat above the normally accepted intelligence standards of the population at large, as often seen when one of their senior production management appear on "Points of View" responding to raised criticism in a "headmaster knows best" fashion.

I notice their response to criticism is always somewhere along the lines of, "well we like it, so we're not going to change anything", even during one occasion when responding to a viewer who called them out on it.

 

[ainsworth74]

Where did you get the idea that the Government wanted to fund this project?

Well they don't that's the problem! They used to but then decided to save a bit of money they'd make it up to the BBC to fund it instead and then make sure to spin it like it's the evil BBC taking away the TV licence from some* pensioners when in reality it is very much the Government who are doing so by putting the BBC in between a rock and a hard place.

*It is worth recalling, again, that pensioners on a low income are protected from this. Low income in this case being less than £167 per week which is still a lot more than a working age persons £73.10 per week and they don't even get a free TV licence on that level of income.

 

[dosxuk]

Where did you get the idea that the Government wanted to fund this project?

About the time when the prime minister said that rich pensioners should get free TV licences. If that's the case, then the Government should be funding it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

About the time when the prime minister said that rich pensioners should get free TV licences. If that's the case, then the Government should be funding it.

Let me take you up on this statement. Quote me the source where the Prime Minister specifically said that rich pensioners should get free TV licences, as you state in your posting. I appreciate that you may personally hold that view, but that is not the matter that I query.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

*It is worth recalling, again, that pensioners on a low income are protected from this. Low income in this case being less than £167 per week which is still a lot more than a working age persons £73.10 per week and they don't even get a free TV licence on that level of income.

Well said, even if it is only in the small print at the foot of your posting. It is obvious that there are some on this thread either are aware of this fact and choose not to mention it, wishing only to make reference to rich pensioners or have no knowledge of it.

 

[LMS 4F]

My dislike with this system is that it takes from the poorest, all pay the same amount, and uses it to pay ludicrous salaries to an obscene number of people within the BBC. If these poor people don't have a licence they may end up in a Magistrates court and some end up in prison for not paying the huge fines.
This is accepted by politicians of all parties, who love the BBC because they can get on it a lot, often for a fee.
I read somewhere that 25 per cent of all cases at Magistrates a courts are for non payment of TV licence. The cost to the country must be huge.
End this shambles, let them finance themselves as they see fit, adverts or subscription and watch them become a leaner less preaching organisation.

 

[Busaholic]

Belated straight answer to a straight question, yes, one could opt as a married woman to make a reduced payment, typically 5.85% of the relevant earnings band as opposed to 12% full rate. It was withdrawn to new entrants in 1977 but you could opt to continue in it. The woman is basically entitled to a pension rate equivalent to 60% of their husband's BUT ONLY ON HIS RETIREMENT: so my wife, who was one such, had to wait until she was 63 and a bit, until I hit 65.

Something I've only just learned is that approx 18 months ago the government quietly changed the regulations and, from now on, the wife's (and it is only applicable to wives) pension in these circumstances will cease soon after her husband's death.

 

[dosxuk]

Let me take you up on this statement. Quote me the source where the Prime Minister specifically said that rich pensioners should get free TV licences, as you state in your posting.

Simple - since the poor will continue to get a free TV licence regardless, he can't have been referring to them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Simple - since the poor will continue to get a free TV licence regardless, he can't have been referring to them.

You have fallen into your own trap here. Just because you make a supposition that refers to the opposite side of a comparison, you were unable to furnish the actual source of the Prime Minister specifically making reference to rich pensioners, which is the reason why I asked for a source to be provided that such a named statement could be verified.

 

[dosxuk]

You have fallen into your own trap here. Just because you make a supposition that refers to the opposite side of a comparison, you were unable to furnish the actual source of the Prime Minister specifically making reference to rich pensioners, which is the reason why I asked for a source to be provided that such a named statement could be verified.

You've completely lost me now. I think you're trying to make a point, but I can't see what it is. As they say on the BBC, I'm out.

 

[Terry Tait]

The BBC should be privatised so that it can succeed or fail on it's own policy.

 

[HSTEd]

Abolish the TV Licence and make the BBC a precepting authority on council tax.
Then the existing benefits infrastructure will help the poorest and we save £100m/yr on collection.

 

[radamfi]

Ireland have just announced that its TV licence will be replaced by "a device independent broadcasting charge" by 2024.

 

[Flying Snail]

Ireland have just announced that its TV licence will be replaced by "a device independent broadcasting charge" by 2024.

In case you're wondering what that word salad means, effectively they want to charge every household for RTE (Ireland's much much much crappier version of the BBC) as in recent years the numbers of mostly younger people claiming they only used on-line sources and were exempt from paying the licence fee because they have no TV has shot up.

If you want to never complain about the BBC again move here and be forced to pay for the appalling standard of programmes across all genres that RTE produce from their stable of job-for-life talent pool on massive salaries and nepotism hired staff.

I have to laugh at the level of moaning there is over the BBC, in comparison with the low quality garbage I pay for or the toxic corrupt drivel that the US population are subjected to it is more than worth the cost of the licence fee.

 

[LMS 4F]

In case you're wondering what that word salad means, effectively they want to charge every household for RTE (Ireland's much much much crappier version of the BBC) as in recent years the numbers of mostly younger people claiming they only used on-line sources and were exempt from paying the licence fee because they have no TV has shot up.

If you want to never complain about the BBC again move here and be forced to pay for the appalling standard of programmes across all genres that RTE produce from their stable of job-for-life talent pool on massive salaries and nepotism hired staff.

I have to laugh at the level of moaning there is over the BBC, in comparison with the low quality garbage I pay for or the toxic corrupt drivel that the US population are subjected to it is more than worth the cost of the licence fee.

I agree with you from what I've seen of TV in the States. However just because other countries systems are rubbish doesn't justify in my opinion the current Licence fee for funding the BBC.