TV Licensing (rant alert)

[BillyC]

I just read this article on the BBC News website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5081350.stm

It suggests that the TV licensing authority can (and will) prosecute people watching TV through broadband internet connections:

The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device that can receive TV signals, must buy a licence.

This includes video recorders, set-top boxes and DVD recorders.

You will also need a licence if you can watch live broadcasts on your computer.

Now, I agree that it's rare to find someone in the UK that has a computer, and a broadband internet connection - that doesn't also have a television, and consequently (probably) a TV Licence.

However, I have to say that I don't like the direction that this points itself in. You may not have a TV, but just by the fact that you may own a computer that is connected to the internet - you open yourself up to prosecution because you could "watch live broadcasts on your computer".

It's this kind of attitude that makes me wonder what the BBC, and indeed the TV Licensing authority are playing at. It's hardly good PR, nor is it easily enforceable. Articles such as this, that are notably carried by the "impartial" BBC, just go to serve the Nanny-State warning of "we're watching you, be a good citizen".

I wouldn't mind so much if more effort were put into Freeview, and the BBC elevating their revenue generation from abroad. It seems that it's the majority of Licence Fee payers that are paying for the minority of viewers' entertainment.

What next? Prosecution because I didn't have a licence to read the BBC New site? But it's okay to stream their programs and radio globally - but the UK payer has to pick up that bill?

I think the BBC do a generallay good job, and provide a quality service for much of what they do. I just don't like the tone of this though.

Does anyone else have a view on the subject?

[sharriso74]

Surely it's down to the site streaming the broadcast to pay the BBC for transmission rights. They then make their money from advertising on the site etc.

If they don't want people watching it via their website without paying for it make you logon to it then. Once again being forced to pay for something I don't use.

[akbarhussain]

The BBC is doing it's best to hang onto the license fee's whilst they still can - there so many other sources of media nowadays, it just seems silly. I for one resent being made to pay for a service that I don't use...... so I simply don't pay for the service.

But the TV Licensing Authority now says watching the BBC's World Cup coverage over broadband will require a licence.

lol, the TVLA is run by the BBC to collect money for the BBC, so its not wonder that they take this approach.

[Biker Biggles]

Yes.I don't know about watching on the internet,but I agree very much with your comments about the tone of their adverts threatening those who don't have a license.Exactly the same can be said of the DVLA with their "our computer knows everything" vehicle licenseing ads.They seem to be proud of the fact that Orwell's 1984 is rapidly becoming reality here.I find this trait thoroughly undesirable and far more worrying than the "big stories" that our media decide are important for us to read about.

[wyrdness]

The TV licensing people are a wunch of bankers:

Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (as amended), anyone who sells or hires television receiving equipment must notify the TV Licensing Authority of their customers' names and the address where the equipment is to be installed.

These details are cross-referenced against a database of over 28 million addresses to find out whether people have applied for a valid licence.

A guy a work with needed a TV in his office to test a set-top box. So he goes over the road to Currys and buys one with his company credit card. Currys, by law, have to notify the licensing nazis with the name and address of anyone who buys a TV.

Shortly afterwards, he gets a nastygram from said licensing nazis, saying that they're going to fine him for not having a TV license. They sent it to our work address - Sky TV's head office!

He sent the nastygram on to the company lawyers, who dealt with it. I'd have ignored it and let them send their inspectors round. After all, we've got thousands of televisions here.

[akbarhussain]

If anyone not in possession of a license ever has a visit from an inspector........ please ask them why they are knocking on doors to check for tv's when they have perfectly good 'detector vans' to tell them this information. I would love to hear their answer.

[Rider]

Surely what we should have now - given all the different channels available - is the option to have BBC channels and hence the option to fork out for the licence.

[BillyC]

Our society is becoming increasingly left-wing, which I believe has been a result of our goverment's style since 1997. Unfortunately I don't think it has brought with it any of the benefits one might associate with the Left.

Generally I believe this is down to the style of Government since 1997, which is finally proving to be very unpopular the more extreme things get.

When Orwell's 1984 was written, it was a shocking entertainment, no body actually believed that life could be quite that extreme. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, aspects of the society described by Orwell back in the late 40's, are disturbingly accurate.

What probably inspired Orwell to write that book, was the Labour government at the time, Newly elected after WWII, it took every step it thought it could get away with to oppress, control, and manipulate the people with propaganda, instruction, and law.

[creamerybutter]

Aye we got a letter when the misses bought a TV in her name but the licence was in my name. I was a surprisingly long phone call to them in order to sort it all out.

[BillyC]

If anyone not in possession of a license ever has a visit from an inspector........ please ask them why they are knocking on doors to check for tv's when they have perfectly good 'detector vans' to tell them this information. I would love to hear their answer.

Detector Vans aren't much good at picking up a TV accurately behond your front room. Hand-held detectors are more accurate for pinpointing the precise location of a TV, or more specifically, its demodulator.

Surely what we should have now - given all the different channels available - is the option to have BBC channels and hence the option to fork out for the licence.

This would cripple the BBC in its current state. I like the fact that the BBC does not have to advertise, and I generally think its content is of a greater quality than some of the other "free" channels.

However, your suggestion is very sensible. It's also probably very feasable once the BBC have finished paying for the Government's project for Digital Terrestrial after ITV cocked it up; and can sell more of their channels abroad - not just News24 (which we all paid for, but most of us couldn't watch!).

[Biker Biggles]

That's an interesting take on Orwell.I always had him as a strong left winger,given his history.Did'nt he fight in the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War?I also felt his 1984 was aimed at right wing authoritarianism,even if Animal Farm was aimed more at the Commies,but I think his real genious was that It matters not a jot whether these people are left or right,its power that corrupts whoever wields it.A truely great writer however you interpret him.

[Warthog]

What really ****es me off is that I just shelled out £131 for a new licence, and then I read that the BBC spent £20 million on new chairs for their new building, and goons like Natasha Koplinsky earn £400,000 a year!! They are squandering my licence money and the schedule is full with bloody lifestyle programs, not the old Red Dwarf and Blackadder that were good uses of BBC money! Grrrrrrrr

[Flamin_Squirrel]

That's an interesting take on Orwell.I always had him as a strong left winger,given his history.Did'nt he fight in the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War?I also felt his 1984 was aimed at right wing authoritarianism,even if Animal Farm was aimed more at the Commies,but I think his real genious was that It matters not a jot whether these people are left or right,its power that corrupts whoever wields it.A truely great writer however you interpret him.

The difference between the extreme right and left are their views on economic freedom. Both are authoritarian.

[Biker Biggles]

I strongly agree with independant funding for the Beeb too,as without that it would have to compete with all the other lowest common denominator channels and what would be the point?Somehow it needs to get back to a lower volmne but high quality output and act as a beacon standing above all the crap.I am unashamedly elitist on this.Sorry. :oops:

[akbarhussain]

I strongly agree with independant funding for the Beeb too,as without that it would have to compete with all the other lowest common denominator channels and what would be the point?

So they don't at the moment, with fine programming highlights such as celebrity singing/dancing/cooking fever, or whatever the ****e is that they have on at the moment.

[Biker Biggles]

If you read the next line of my post you will find I agree with you.They should move BACK to excellence and AWAY from volumne.This means not competing in the ratings fiasco,but it requires funding somehow.Not an easy contradiction to resolve,but it must be done if the Beeb is to survive as anything other than just another crap merchant.

[BillyC]

Biggles, I have no doubt that you're correct. I was merely speculating on the UK history at the time, though I'd not considered other books of his and their indicated views.


Back on topic, the BBC has to cater for everyone, and it does so very well most of the time. While they do put some crap on to do with celebrity singing and dancing ("celebrity" self promotion), they also put some quality programmes on to achieve a balance.

I like watching Top Gear... but lots of people don't. If losing "I'm a celebrity, get me a life" meant losing Top Gear as well, I'd gladly suffer in silence to keep JC and the team.

The BBC speculate that while their fee costs £130 or so, every household pays indirectly for the commercial terrestrial stations to the tune of £1000 a year through the costs of products that use TV advertising. It's an interesting viewpoint, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were little or no exageration in that figure.


But yes, part of my gripe is the way they spend it... who gives a sh*t that Koplunsky reads the news... there's no need to pay her £400k for what is in my opinion a very unsatisfactory effort. She's a good example of another "celebrity" who just get on with her job at the beeb, and keep away from the dance floor / ice rink / stage. She elected to be a "journalist" or a "presenter"... so get on with that job and earn the appropriate salary.

Getting rid of Dyke was one of the more intelligent, and also one of the stupidest things that's happened.

[akbarhussain]

If you read the next line of my post you will find I agree with you.They should move BACK to excellence and AWAY from volumne.This means not competing in the ratings fiasco,but it requires funding somehow.Not an easy contradiction to resolve,but it must be done if the Beeb is to survive as anything other than just another crap merchant.

Ah, sorry Biggles, I misunderstood the intial post.

[GSXR Carlos]

is it not gearng up for HD (broadband straight to tv) ?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I am unashamedly elitist on this.Sorry. :oops:

And that's another thing - since when did the word 'elitest' become dirty?

[Balky001]

yep, Beeb should be funded and those techy IT people shouldn't get away with not paying for it :lol: :wink:

[ArtyLady]

Yes.I don't know about watching on the internet,but I agree very much with your comments about the tone of their adverts threatening those who don't have a license.Exactly the same can be said of the DVLA with their "our computer knows everything" vehicle licenseing ads.They seem to be proud of the fact that Orwell's 1984 is rapidly becoming reality here.I find this trait thoroughly undesirable and far more worrying than the "big stories" that our media decide are important for us to read about.

I agree - In my view these particular adverts are akin to bullying - by portraying these issues in such a dark and disturbing manner, Im sure it must provoke anxiety in some over-consciencious law abiding folk - who do have all their relevant licences - the opposite type of person from those who couldnt give two hoots and drive off after theyve just knocked someone off their motorcycle who probably dont bother with car tax, and TV licences who obviously wouldnt be bothered by these adverts anyway - and they are the ones the adverts are supposed to be targetting ! :x

[lynw]

Ok has anyone read that article properly? :wink: :P :lol:

The bit where it says it only applies to LIVE broadcasts? If you watch archived material its not necessary to have a licence. So bit torrents would mean no licence though you may be in a copyright issue there.

I can understand what the BBC and TVLA are saying. By streaming the "live" broadcast through its networks a firm are continuing that "broadcast" to each PC.

The Licensing Law says you need a licence if you have equipment to receive a signal. It covers "any device" so if you have a tv card in your pc, you need a licence.

However, Id like them to specify where in the law it distinguishes from live and not-live broadcasts via a medium you're still not receiving a tv signal tbh. I suspect this is a distinguishing feature the BBC/TVLA are trying to enforce without it backed up by law. If the law does not make this distinction, then they can not enforce it.

[Peter Henry]

Pah trust Lyn to bring a bit of reason where it's least wanted! :P

[Nick762]

I'm with you on this one, in fact I asked a similar question a few days ago.

As I understand it the licence is for a RF broadcast receiver which can be a TV, VCR or even a PC with a TV card but I don't see how watching a broadband video stream over the net can possibly contravene licensing regs. When is a broadcast not a broadcast?

I think it is just a cynical ploy to raise money, anyone know if such a case has ever gone to court?

[Red ones]

What is "Live?"

Big Brother "Live" is actually about 15 minutes old. Is this live?

[lynw]

I think it is just a cynical ploy to raise money, anyone know if such a case has ever gone to court?

No, but I dont intend it to be me as the test case either. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ArtyLady]

What is "Live?"

Big Brother "Live" is actually about 15 minutes old. Is this live?

I was gonna say 42 but that was "the meaning of life" wasnt it? :lol: :wink:

[BillyC]

I was gonna say 42 but that was "the meaning of life" wasnt it? :lol: :wink:

... and the Universe... and EVERYTHING!

[Grinch]

I was gonna say 42 but that was "the meaning of life" wasnt it? :lol: :wink:

... and the Universe... and EVERYTHING!

so 42 would be right...

[sharriso74]

But what's the ultimate question?

[Spiderman]

But what's the ultimate question?

Marvin was about to tell them last night (on UKG2) but they all got carried away with worry about crashing into a sun so they didnt ask him again before he gave up his own life for them to teleport off the ship.

But you all knew that anyway, cos you've all probably been to Milliways loads of times. And didnt even invite me either :(












well, so long and thanks for all the fish. :wink:

[wyrdness]

Does Razor need a TV licence?

[Sid Squid]

I don't know - has he got a telly?

[Biker Biggles]

Razor's TV license is never going to be a black and white issue. :wink:

[sharriso74]

Razor's TV license is never going to be a black and white issue. :wink:

A little black number perhaps