6 ms·

I commented on the BBC website but I might as well post it here too: As a proud listener, viewer and supporter of the BBC, this is one part that seems really u

• chrisseaton 8y ago
  > Why should I need an account to listen to BBC content? It doesn't apply to audio of course, but watching BBC video content now requires you to be a licence payer doesn't it? So they need to know who you are. I guess they just extended the system to all content for simplicity.
  • afandian 8y ago
    Correct. TV licenses apply to TV content. We don't have radio licenses any more. You don't need a TV license to listen to radio. > I guess they just extended the system to all content for simplicity. The 'iPlayer' app (web and native) is entirely different to the 'iPlayer Radio' and 'Sounds' apps. It's not simple to add auth to apps totally unrelated to TV.
    • chrisseaton 8y ago
      I meant maybe the backend is the same? They probably have one content delivery system.
      • afandian 8y ago
        Technology serves policy. You don't build anything without a reason. If they said "our technology platform is cheaper if we track every user's activity and prevent anyone from accessing it without authentication" then at least that would be honest. I think it would raise some very legitimate questions, though. FWIW I don't think this is the case. You can access BBC Sounds fine from other parts of the world, just with ads inserted. If they can geolocate non-UK listeners to substitute auth for ads, they can geolocate UK listeners without auth or ads.
      • tombrossman 8y ago
        For the avoidance of doubt, they do not automatically match up TV licences to your BBC iPlayer account. When you go to the website to watch a video, you are redirected to the login page. From there, you are asked whether you have a TV licence, and only then does the video start. I can only assume the forced login is to enable user tracking? I don't mind paying the TV license fee as the content is excellent, but I browse the website and download what I want to watch with youdube-dl, because I categorically reject their creepy tracking, which they refuse to properly explain. If youtube-dl stops working, I'll keep paying the licence to support the programming, but will look for torrents of the shows to download instead.
  • Mindwipe 8y ago
    > It doesn't apply to audio of course, but watching BBC video content now requires you to be a licence payer doesn't it? So they need to know who you are. I guess they just extended the system to all content for simplicity. The database for the BBC website logins and the database for people who have a license fee aren't connected, and couldn't be under the Data Protection Act. The BBC login doesn't check if the information is valid, or if you have a license, it's literally just for user tracking for data.
    • DanBC 8y ago
      > and couldn't be under the Data Protection Act. Watching tv without a licence is a crime and DPA includes exceptions for the detection or prevention of crime. Which bit of DPA do you think prevents them linking these databases?
      • Mindwipe 8y ago
        It's the difference between specific and general monitoring. The BBC can absolutely take an individual login to iPlayer that they think is suspicious, and have TV licensing determine if that address has a license. But it is objectively true that you can type in any old nonsense into a BBC account registration and it does not validate it against the License Fee database - that's because moving to a general system of checking is not what that database would be collected for, and would probably not be found to be a proportionate or non-general monitoring and therefore cannot use that exemption.
  • coob 8y ago
    They claim the account requirement is not about licensing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/77bdafd0-20b3-414d-aa53-48786b194543 https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/77bdafd0-20b...
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• kacamak 8y ago
  >As a proud listener, viewer and supporter of the BBC Jesus christ
  • afandian 8y ago
    What? There are tonnes of critics and conspiracy theorists. Look up 'TV licensing' on YouTube. I am not one of those. I am very grateful that we have Radio 3, 4 and various podcasts. The news is generally balanced and generally of high quality. I think that's reasonable contextualization for the comment.
    • phatfish 8y ago
      All media/news organisations have an agenda, but state sponsored ones are especially dangerous. BBC News is a government mouthpiece, I would rather the UK government didn't have a means to distribute their propaganda directly to my TV or phone or computer under the guise of a "friendly national broadcaster".
      • reactor4 8y ago
        > There are tonnes of critics and conspiracy theorists.
      • shrikant 8y ago
        I consume tonnes of BBC content (TV shows, films, radio) while barely touching anything from BBC News.
    • CheckBlanket 8y ago
      The stuff on YouTube is pretty ridiculous, but it did lead me to discover http://www.bbctvlicence.com http://www.bbctvlicence.com - an archive of the automated and increasingly aggressive (until the cycle resets) letters TV Licensing inundate non-license holding households with. I've got a personal stack of around 10, I've only lived here half a year. The BBC doesn't do themselves any favours in winning back non-payees with these tactics.
• bubblesort 8y ago
  I agree. I use RSS to listen to the BBC Global News podcast every morning over breakfast (and NPR, and CBC news updates). As much as I love that part of my morning routine, I wouldn't create an account to listen to it, so I don't see a reason to change from RSS.
• dbbk 8y ago
  I worked at the BBC when this account requirement was rolled out. The idea behind it is honestly about improving the user experience. If you're logged in, they can keep your progress saved across devices (so for iPlayer that means across platforms like Computer, Phone, Xbox etc), and they can learn more about you to promote recommendations on what to watch. People broadly speaking really like this, it's one of the best features of Netflix as an example.
  • detaro 8y ago
    Between a "log in to sync your progress" and a "log in to to hear anything at all", the latter seems like worse UX.
  • astura 8y ago
    The podcast app I use has this as an option, it's not mandatory. Personally, I wouldn't use it if I had to sign in, syncing is not a feature I care about one bit and I don't need even an ounce of friction between me and "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me." If I had to sign in to listen I'd just turn on the radio or something instead. If its truly about improving consumer experience its optional. I am not required to login to Chrome or Firefox to use them even though some people find bookmark/history syncing to be useful features.
  • afandian 8y ago
    I don't doubt the good faith of individual implementors such as yourself. But, like the official BBC communications, you fail to address the _compulsory_ nature. To draw a very apposite analogy, YouTube on Android requires sign-in for minor functionality. There's no 'back' button and you can't bookmark videos for later. The UX is deliberately crippled unless you sign in: clicked video by mistake? Good luck getting back to the previous one. This is a choice they made. It's not beyond the whit of an Android app to store bookmarks locally and sync them when you sign-in. Or to maintain a history for a back button. The ostensible reason is "so you can have a uniform experience across all devices". The real reason is "so we can use your data to shift ads". We all know this, and it's part of the Google value proposition. It's free because they exploit your data. The BBC is something different altogether. It's partly non-profit, has no shareholders, funded in a unique way, and, without wishing to seem mawkish, something special. Emulating commercial SV companies leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth. That combined with the privileged place it holds in public life, is not a nice combination. Maybe Netflix has some nice features. Maybe the BBC can adopt them. But if they really are for _my_ benefit, let me opt in, don't make it compulsory.
• jdietrich 8y ago
  >Why should I need an account to listen to BBC content? All the pages on the BBC website that pretend to answer this question are evasive and dodge the question. What do you have to hide? The BBC's funding is increasingly under threat and the license fee is being used to fund a wide range of non-core and non-BBC services; mandatory logins are a hedge against several risks. Over-75s are entitled to a free TV license; this was historically funded by government subsidy, but that subsidy will be completely phased out by 2020-21. This will create a revenue shortfall of about £0.5bn, of a total budget of around £4bn. On the other end of the age spectrum, an increasing proportion of young people are living in TV-less households, making it far easier for them to continue watching BBC programming while evading the license fee. The BBC is increasingly reliant on international commercial partnerships (most notably the BritBox streaming service) in order to raise revenues, but this is potentially jeopardised by the increasing use of VPN services; GeoIP walls aren't very useful if a large proportion of internet users can choose their IP location with a couple of clicks. Mandatory logins make a lot of possible future scenarios easier. The BBC may decide to tie logins to the license fee if rates of digitally-assisted fee evasion become untenable. The license fee may be abolished altogether by a future Conservative government, necessitating a shift to a subscription model. The BBC might also decide to open up iPlayer and Sounds to an international audience on a subscription basis. If you object to mandatory logins, I'd suggest writing to your MP to ask them to help safeguard the BBC's funding.
  • tcd 8y ago
    The BBC is under threat because they refuse to innovate. They're not yet doing full scale 4k streaming, programs disappear after X number of days, and to be quite honest, they don't offer the value for money Netflix does. And BBC's own shows, like Planet Earth 2 are already on Netflix, so why would you even still need a license fee at that point? It made sense 20 years ago when there were only 5 or so channels, now there is so much content available so quickly (even if it's not "legal") that people are realizing it's a waste of money. Which is true.
    • timthorn 8y ago
      The BBC certainly doesn’t refuse to innovate. It has a massive history of technical innovation – not least broadcasting TV over IP multicast in 1999 and launching the iPlayer in 2005. There’s no point in them offering full scale 4k streaming given their catalogue, and the 4 week programme availability is a regulatory restriction due to competition concerns – this is demonstrated by the fact that they’re showing series back-to-back in the early hours to allow box-sets of older shows to be on iPlayer. The BBC license fee is about £12.90/month, which to provide all the BBC National and Local Radio in addition to the multiple TV channels and their online offering is fantastic value. Their shows will be disappearing from Netflix as rights expire in order to bring the content back to BritBox which will launch in the UK soon. Edit - corrected fee
• ForHackernews 8y ago
  > I don't use a Google account on my android phone because I value my privacy. That means I can't install the Sounds app. This isn't strictly true. You can sideload an APK even without a Google account. Obviously the BBC making its content more accessible would still be a good thing, and most people aren't going to go sideloading their Sounds app.