Tv license.......Shambles

[Al ears]

It was always my understanding that you had to have a licence if you owned anything with a 'tuner' in it, as it was this that allowed you to receive the TV signal. Purely watching TV over an internet connection would surely circumvent this as there is no tuner card in my laptop.

No. Doesn't matter what the equipment is, if you watch a TV broadcast live, you need a TV license, whatever you watch it on. The bits about "equipment capable of receiving a broadcast" have been removed. You don't need a license to watch TV on catchup services.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8/

Course, my digital cable and Freeview boxes are always a few seconds out of sync of true 'live', so I don't bother with a license...;-)

I see - I think! Dunno about the 'live' bit though as the vast majority appears to be 'repeats'

 

[Amadeus1756]

Thats a poor example unless the hypothetical person grows their own food and makes their own cloths as the motorways are essential to the countrys infrastructure

I'm not sure that it is - the UK existed before 1959 (or whenever the first motorway was built in the UK) and the UK doesn't grind to a standstill if a motorway closes (tho it certainly creates a certain amount of inconvenience).

I don't see the difference between choosing to only watch ITV and choosing to only drive on non-motorways. But this probably is probably derailing the topic, so we can agree to disagree on this point.

Let's just all agree that the BBC is brilliant, gives great value for money, educates and informs us?

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

The entire year's licence fee was worth it for the moment this morning on BBC Radio 4 Today programme when they challenged Ed Miliband about being "weird".

(Listen from 14:00 here).

listening to that reminds me how Blairish his debating style is(how many times does he preface a sentence with "look" )

You just don't get the bonus arm gesturing on radio.

 

[The_Lhc]

if you don't like it, write to your MP.

I'm sure many people have, and do, and it doesn't, and won't ever, make any difference.

Not true at all. If enough people did, and it was high enough on their agenda to change their voting habits, then it would most definitely make a difference - this is how democracy works.

Thinking about it, it now only requires 100,000 people to sign one of these new e-petitions to get it considered for debate in Parliament, no need to involve your MP at all.

Unfortunately for yourself, it may be that you find yourself in a minority who wants to scrap the BBC in its current form (which is essentially what would happen were the changes you're asking for to come about). I can't prove that, so happy to be proved wrong - if most people do want to do this, then that's what should happen. I currently think it would be a sad day were that ever to come about.

Most people don't want to scrap the BBC, they just don't like paying for anything, although most of them are happy to pay far more to drink themselves into oblivion every week or smoke themselves to death (two packets of fags is the same price as the TV license for a month, I know which I think is better value) but not to pay for the finest TV broadcaster in the world (which they're probably watching whilst they do the other two things). But that's a different argument.

 

[The_Lhc]

I don't see the difference between choosing to only watch ITV and choosing to only drive on non-motorways. But this probably is probably derailing the topic, so we can agree to disagree on this point.

Let's just all agree that the BBC is brilliant, gives great value for money, educates and informs us?

And (hopefully) the BBC wouldn't use footage from a video game thinking it was the IRA at work...

 

[John Duncan]

The entire year's licence fee was worth it for the moment this morning on BBC Radio 4 Today programme when they challenged Ed Miliband about being "weird".

(Listen from 14:00 here).

Although obviously I don't need one to listen to the radio...

 

[John Duncan]

I don't see the difference between choosing to only watch ITV and choosing to only drive on non-motorways. But this probably is probably derailing the topic, so we can agree to disagree on this point.

Let's just all agree that the BBC is brilliant, gives great value for money, educates and informs us?

And (hopefully) the BBC wouldn't use footage from a video game thinking it was the IRA at work...

Let he who is without sin...

 

[chebby]

Course, my digital cable and Freeview boxes are always a few seconds out of sync of true 'live', so I don't bother with a license...;-)

That would only work until March when the analogue 'reference' live broadcasts disappear.

Of course (if you could demonstrate this time delay to a TV license bod) you'd still get done because the equipment necessary to prove your argument would constitute a breach itself. (Unless you get a license paying neighbour to select an analogue channel and put the TV in their front window and have your TV in your - unlicensed - front window showing the digital channel.)

You could buy two PVRs. Take one around to said friendly neighbour's place, plug it in, set a week's worth of viewing to record automatically. After a week, take that PVR back to watch recordings at home and leave second PVR to record the following week's viewing ... and so on.

Of course, two PVRs could cost as much as three TV licenses, but at least it will show 'The Man' you won't pay their dastardly, evil, pernicious (but incredibly good value) tax 'cos you're a rebel and you'd rather hang than pay anyone for stuff.

Either that or I could be lying and really do have a TV license (since I'd pay double if they'd let me).

Just entering into the spirit of the absurdity of this thread.

I couldn't afford double but i'd like it pegged to inflation/cost of living rather than frozen for another 5 years.

 

[The_Lhc]

I don't see the difference between choosing to only watch ITV and choosing to only drive on non-motorways. But this probably is probably derailing the topic, so we can agree to disagree on this point.

Let's just all agree that the BBC is brilliant, gives great value for money, educates and informs us?

And (hopefully) the BBC wouldn't use footage from a video game thinking it was the IRA at work...

Let he who is without sin...

Yeah but that is actually the Queen, it's not footage from Monarchy2:Anarchy UK or something. That "IRA" footage was so obviously from a game it's embarassing.

 

[John Duncan]

But the Queen one was deliberate, the game footage was 'human* error'

*unemployed human, I suspect

 

[Paul.]

Thats a poor example unless the hypothetical person grows their own food and makes their own cloths as the motorways are essential to the countrys infrastructure

I'm not sure that it is - the UK existed before 1959 (or whenever the first motorway was built in the UK) and the UK doesn't grind to a standstill if a motorway closes (tho it certainly creates a certain amount of inconvenience).

I don't see the difference between choosing to only watch ITV and choosing to only drive on non-motorways. But this probably is probably derailing the topic, so we can agree to disagree on this point.

Let's just all agree that the BBC is brilliant, gives great value for money, educates and informs us?

My point was, that you are using the motorways even if you dont own a car. My Sausages from up north would never be eaten by myself in bristol without motorways, hence I use the motorways even though I dont own a car. The world as I know it would colapse without motorways, I can live just fine without the BBC.

I will agree the natural history unit is fantastic, but not much else. One day the broadcast infrastucure will all be switched off and the frequencies utilised for data transfer, hopefully then I can subscribe to the shows that I watch and pay for what I use.

 

[MajorFubar]

Unfortunately for yourself, it may be that you find yourself in a minority who wants to scrap the BBC in its current form (which is essentially what would happen were the changes you're asking for to come about).

All I ask that we should have a right to opt out, if we don't want to use the BBC's services. I hear The_LHC's argument that officially the ‘TV licence’ is a licence to watch all broadcast TV, because that's the official line. But with all due respect it's a pretty lame official line, because no other broadcaster but the BBC gets a penny of it, they never have and they probably never will. So it is, albut in name, a BBC licence.

What I would impose, had I the ability, is that BBC became an encoded subscription-only service, costing the same as the current licence-fee. As analogue TV and radio are phased out, this would be pretty easy to achieve and regulate in the digital domain.

It would be no different to Sky and cable, or even the other encoded subscription-only channels already on Freeview. It could work the same way. People who want to watch the BBC would pay. People who don’t, wouldn’t. Can’t say fairer than that.

And if allowing people to opt out essentially nailed the lid to the BBC’s coffin, then surely that means it’s only alive now because people are being forced to pay for a service they don't want. And that's not exactly fair is it? I have no opinion on whether it would survive or not.

 

[The_Lhc]

But the Queen one was deliberate, the game footage was 'human* error'

*unemployed human, I suspect

That's kind of my point, the BBC employed someone lacking in ethical standards, ITV employed a moron. I'd rather have programs made by people who can go on an ethics training course than people who don't know where their elbows are...

 

[The_Lhc]

Just to make my position absolutely clear: I don't believe anybody who says they don't consume any BBC content.

 

[entropy2]

I wish they would let us have the choice! i.e. it covers BBC. I don't watch BBC so should be able to opt out..

its disgusts me having to pay for a license! seems barbaric

 

[Lee H]

I wish they would let us have the choice! i.e. it covers BBC. I don't watch BBC so should be able to opt out..

its disgusts me having to pay for a license! seems barbaric

Just to be clear, you have don't - and have no intention of - watching, ANY of the BBC TV channels, listen to ANY BBC Radio station, EVER look at the BBC website. You also NEVER watch any BBC produced programmes for other channels?

By this extenstion, I don't have kids so should be able to reclaim the education part of my council tax, I've never needed the Fire Brigade or the Police so should also get that back?

Anyway, you do have a choice. Watch non-live on-line.

 

[hammill]

I wish they would let us have the choice! i.e. it covers BBC. I don't watch BBC so should be able to opt out..

its disgusts me having to pay for a license! seems barbaric

No, barbaric is whipping a woman because she drove a car. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15079620. Please get a sense or proportion. I don't like David Cameron, but I would not compare him to Pol Pot.

 

[daveh75]

All I ask that we should have a right to opt out, if we don't want to use the BBC's services. I hear The_LHC's argument that officially the ‘TV licence’ is a licence to watch all broadcast TV, because that's the official line. But with all due respect it's a pretty lame official line, because no other broadcaster but the BBC gets a penny of it, they never have and they probably never will.

Not directly, but other broadcasters do benefit from the license fee!

The BBC provides programming for S4C for example.

A proportion of the license fee also goes towards funding DSO. So every broadcaster on Freeview (DTT) benefits indirectly.

Then there's Freesat, set up and funded by BBC and ITV.

 

[Lee H]

We also get off fairly lightly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

 

[entropy2]

Nope I never watch any BBC product on live TV. Just recently had to sign up again thought but thats just so my wife can watch x factor.. she must watch it live and cant wait till the next day! (women)

I grew up in America so I prefer to watch the American shows plus there is no license fee in America so maybe thats why I feel strongly bout having to pay for one here.

I do have planet earth on Blu Ray though.

 

[SonofSun]

Just to make my position absolutely clear: I don't believe anybody who says they don't consume any BBC content.

I don't "consume content", but sometimes I may watch or listen, media talk makes me physically ill.

 

[SonofSun]

Just to make my position absolutely clear: I don't believe anybody who says they don't consume any BBC content.

I don't "consume content", but sometimes I may watch or listen, media talk makes me physically ill.

 

[Soopafly49]

Just to make my position absolutely clear: I don't believe anybody who says they don't consume any BBC content.

Even if that person doesn't wacth tv at home at all?

 

[The_Lhc]

Just to make my position absolutely clear: I don't believe anybody who says they don't consume any BBC content.

Even if that person doesn't wacth tv at home at all?

And you never listen to the radio or ever read the BBC News website?

 

[entropy2]

No never.. i don't get why thats so hard to comprehend? there are other news outlets in the world and other radio stations and other content producers..

I get by fine with out them and thats why I don't like the idea of the TV license.