TV Licensing (rant alert)
 

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:

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

The TV licensing people are a wunch of bankers:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!).