// Home / News

BBC plays down iPlayer content charges

By Stewart Mitchell

Posted on 16 Jan 2012 at 11:21

The BBC has played down the range and scale of possible charges for content on its catch-up TV iPlayer in the UK.

The publicly funded broadcaster saw nearly two billion programme requests across all platforms last year, but raised concerns among Licence Fee payers when it floated the idea of charging for some content.

Reports suggested a pay-per-view model for programmes that had passed the seven-day window for catch-up TV, but the BBC says the idea was to make more content from the archives available.

"We never stop future-gazing at the BBC and there are always a number of new ideas under discussion,” the BBC said in a statement.

“Any such ideas would need to be developed in conjunction with the industry and with rights-holders and they would certainly not lead to a two-tier licence fee."

Speaking to PC Pro, a corporation spokesperson said any move to charge wouldn’t affect programmes currently available shortly after broadcast, but could be used as a way of making more content available.

The Beeb said it was hoping to create a business model that would unlock “80 years of history” so that niche requests such as an Old Grey Whistle Test from the 70s or a news bulletin from the 50s could be made available via a micropayment.

The spokesperson stressed the move, if given the go-ahead by corporation bosses, was not going to happen in the near future.

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

Brilliant idea

It would be a great idea if the BBC could open up the archives - particularly for programmes that are not normally repeated - for a small fee per view.

A similar scheme could provide ITV with some useful extra revenue.

By qpw3141 on 16 Jan 2012

@qpw3141

I agree. We've already paid for older programmes to be produced, broadcast and (I suppose) archived, but we didn't pay for them to be cleaned up, digitised and made available for online-viewing.

I think this is an excellent idea.

By bioreit on 16 Jan 2012

The only issues I have with this idea are:
1. DRM
2. Price

If both of these (especially the former) are a non-issue I like the idea as long as the current model remains free.

DRM is a particular issue for me because I use various devices so I'd like them to be DRM free if possible.

By tech3475 on 16 Jan 2012

Not convinvced

Although I love the idea of archive news footage, sitcoms etc being made available it's difficult to sell the idea of charging for this content to the public.

Of course who then decides what future content would be free and what would be chargable?

By JStairmand on 16 Jan 2012

Great idea!

If this can be done in iTunes, then why not on iPlayer.

However I would like to see the possibility of downloading something and being able to keep it, rather than have it expire on me.

By mrmmm on 16 Jan 2012

It's difficult to sell the idea of charging for this content to the public

It would need to be a very small charge per hour's watching - something around 10p. (After all, you get many hours of material for ~40p a day with the licence fee.)

I can't see it being a problem at that level. The trouble starts when the media companies get greedy and people either don't listen/watch or pirate.

By qpw3141 on 16 Jan 2012

Precedents can be dangerous

The BBC Charter says the programming should be free. As soon as a charge is introduced for licence payers to watch BBC TV (even old TV from the BBC) it sets a precedent that says it is OK for the BBC to charge licence payers on top of the licence fee. Over time the charge per item viewed would be stretched to get more and more expensive, and charged on more and more things, with variable pricing so the BBC would eventually become like a PayTV channel. Since the precedent for charging had already been broken, they wouldn't have to ask for this, it would just be 'normal cost of living increases' or some other innocent phrase that disguises the reality.

Since the govt insisted the BBC became more efficient and transferred the cost of running the World Service from the Foreign Office to the BBC itself they've come up with all sorts of ideas to make money. The one they will do absolutely last of all, if ever, of course is the one the politicians and viewers alike want them to make most of all: cutting the salaries for their 'stars'. I think the £18 million contract for Jonafan Woss is the sort of thing the govt wanted them to make. But really, can anyone imagine the likes of Dimbleby, Paxman, Forsyth and assorted other presenters will take pay cuts? Not over their septuagenarian dead bodies they won't!

By SwissMac on 16 Jan 2012

@Swissmac

That's really rather pre-empted by the many commercial ventures undertaken by the BBC at arm's length. If there is a charter problem then they can bypass that in the same way that they bypass the problem when charging for watching repeats on the 'UK ???' channels. It gets over the charter problem and does not set a precedent.

By qpw3141 on 16 Jan 2012

Why not

UK Gold is a BBC venture, and some people are happy to pay for that. Why not an online equivalent through iPlayer?

I'd like to see 'The Adventure Game' from the 1980's!

By Stiggy on 16 Jan 2012

@qpw3141

My point remains, the overpaid BBC presenters will NOT be feeling any pay cuts, despite the attempts to persuade the BBC they should; the Beeb will continue to look everywhere and anywhere for ways to make more money before they even sneeze at payments for presenters.

By SwissMac on 16 Jan 2012

"I think the £18 million contract for Jonafan Woss is the sort of thing the govt wanted them to make"

Ross's production team made the BBC shows he appeared in and much of that £16.9 million (not £18 million) went towards making the shows over a period of three years.

Yes Ross benefited from having his production company do the work but it's not like that the entire £16.9 million went directly into his pocket.

By Lacrobat on 16 Jan 2012

"It would be a great idea if the BBC could open up the archives - particularly for programmes that are not normally repeated"

Or released on DVD.

The classic 1975 children's series "The Changes" for example. I have to resort to pirated copies or YouTube to watch that as if I were wait for the BBC to release it on DVD, I'll be pushing up the daises before it arrives.

By Lacrobat on 16 Jan 2012

Sounds good to me

It would likely be a better deal than most other on-demand services, the beeb needs to find more cash since it's fee has been frozen

By luckyse7en on 16 Jan 2012

BUT !!! we have already paid for it.

It stinks.

I can already download most of the Dr Who stuff anyway even though I dont want to.

Either put it up or shut up.

By Boltonian on 17 Jan 2012

Idiots who claim "But!!! we have already paid for it." do you walk into HMV and pocket and walk off without paying for any BBC programmes on DVD? Because you've already paid for it? Moronic commentary.

By Phoomeister on 17 Jan 2012

Excellent

A really excellent idea.

By BobAshton on 17 Jan 2012

We've haven't already paid for it

As the second post by bioreit neatly puts it. Boltonian's view is childish and ignorant.

Selling old programmes is also a valuable source of income to the BBC in addition to the licence fee.

Having watched "Stargazing" last night, closely followed by a Channel 5 "documentary" on plane landings (which had about 15 minutes of unique content in the entire hour, mostly bettered by Youtube footage, and was almost entirely fact free), I can see exactly where licence-payers money goes, and I'm happy about that.

By halsteadk on 17 Jan 2012