3 ms·
At one point the TV was without ads too! My point: a netflix with ads will be more profitable than one without. However they cannot get away with that right no
by SCHiM 8y ago
At one point the TV was without ads too!
My point: a netflix with ads will be more profitable than one without. However they cannot get away with that right now, competition, etc. Maybe never, but there's a reason ads came around, even for people who paid for television.
- ben_w 8y agoIt still is, if you watch only the BBC in the UK. Of course, people still moan about “being forced to pay for it”, even when you tell them how to legally stop paying for it.
- antepodius 8y agoYou can't legally not pay for the bbc and then watch, say, ITV, though.
- ben_w 8y agoYou can if you only watch ITV through thrir online catchup service. When the UK government closed the “iPlayer loophole”, the new rules covered literally only BBC iPlayer. At least, that’s what the TV licencing website says, I don’t know the name of the actual law so I can’t look it up.
- swebs 8y agoHow would you do that?
- ben_w 8y agoThe requirement for a TV licence is specifically “live” and “BBC iPlayer”. Any online service that isn’t live and isn’t iPlayer, isn’t covered by the legislation; many (most?) of the other UK TV broadcasters have their own online catchup/on demand services.
- Nasrudith 8y agoOf course getting people to pay twice for the same thing is more profitable. It is also far less sustainable in a competitive market. With time is money and media backlogs many would rather just use their Steam backlog or DVD library.