# Youtube !



## Blister (29 Dec 2020)

Anyone else getting fed up with youtube ?

Now not content with making you view 1 advert that you have no intrest in

Now you have to view 2 adverts together !!

BORING


----------



## pcb1962 (29 Dec 2020)

Quantity of adverts has gone up massively in the past few months. 
I looked at getting the premium as I watch a lot of YouTube (don't watch TV at all) but 12 quid a month is a bit steep.


----------



## Peri (29 Dec 2020)

Use Firefox (or I think chrome works to) browsers with extensions.

Ublock Origin - You wont see another advert.
sponsorblock - automatically skips over all those "And now a message from this video's sponsor........."

Haven't seen a Youtube advert in years


----------



## sammy.se (29 Dec 2020)

I agree - the adverts are very distracting now. If membership was cheaper (~£4 per month) I would consider it.
I hope at the least, that the increased adverts results in the content creators getting a bit more money.


----------



## sammy.se (29 Dec 2020)

Peri said:


> Use Firefox (or I think chrome works to) browsers with extensions.
> 
> Ublock Origin - You wont see another advert.
> sponsorblock - automatically skips over all those "And now a message from this video's sponsor........."
> ...


Lucky you  except it doesn't work on a smart TV :-(


----------



## Peri (29 Dec 2020)

I'm too old fashioned - phone for calling people, tv for watching telly, PC for the intranetz


----------



## Blister (29 Dec 2020)

Just tried Chrome with Addblocker , Before the video started I was treated to a Rennie advert !!!


----------



## Peri (29 Dec 2020)

It's been many years since I set up Ublock, but I seem to remember you go into the options and tell it to use (subscribe to) filter lists, that'll get you started with blocking 'general' adverts.


----------



## Peri (29 Dec 2020)

If you get stuck I'll throw an 'installing adblock' on chrome guide together with some pictures later 

EDIT: Having said that, I just installed Ublock on a clean install of chrome and it worked straight away for me - went to the youtube site, watched 4 videos, didn't see an advert.


----------



## JohnPW (29 Dec 2020)

With uBlock Origin, you can even block the annoying pop up asking you to sign in.

Right click on it and choose "block element".


----------



## Sandyn (29 Dec 2020)

I use Chrome with AdBlocker for YouTube. It has blocked 71258 Ads and saved me 2 days, 22 hours and 1minute of my life!!


----------



## Spectric (29 Dec 2020)

Hi

It is not just youtube, what about all the silly Tv adds that want you to adopt everything from an elephant to a donkey, take your money in exchange for some pointless life insurance, sell your home to release cash and hopefully you will still have a roof afterwards and then they want to cremate you because they are the experts, does anyone know if that old boy is dead or alive. One minute the daughter is planing to cremate him, then celebrating her success and next he is back again!


----------



## thetyreman (29 Dec 2020)

I don't see any ads, they all get blocked with adblocker and other apps I have installed, wish I could do the same thing with radio and TV...


----------



## paulrbarnard (29 Dec 2020)

I use AddBlock on my Mac. Some sites are now checking for it but turning JavaScript off puts a stop to that game.


----------



## clogs (29 Dec 2020)

whats available for Mac please.......?


----------



## artie (29 Dec 2020)

Thanks to the OP for bringing this up. I too feel that utube are extracting the urine lately.
I don't mind a few ads, after all they have to get paid somehow.
Further thanks to Sandyn for the info about adblocker.
I just watched a utube video telling me how to get free heat for ever, with not one ad.
" O happy day"


----------



## Peri (29 Dec 2020)

Ublock is just a brilliant add-on. I'm a bit of a news junkie, all the newspaper sites I visit have pretty much everything except the news article blocked. All those 'support our site' paragraphs, the 'We think you'd also like...' sections, the annoying videos playing halfway down the page, the 'Breaking news' banners, the (seemingly) several dozen unrelated adverts..... all gone.

As said, I'd love one for normal tv - I'm sick of getting sideswiped with pictures of mistreated animals or starving kids.


----------



## TheUnicorn (29 Dec 2020)

Peri said:


> I'd love one for normal tv - I'm sick of getting sideswiped with pictures of mistreated animals or starving kids.


I watch pretty much all my tv through a humax freeview recorder (which I was lucky to find for £10 a few years ago), I record pretty much everything I watch, so skip through all the adverts, I also find it very useful for fast forwarding through shows. It tidies all the episodes of a series into a neat folder. If there is anything I particuarly want to keep, I can copy it onto a usb stick, then deal with it as I wish on my laptop.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 Dec 2020)

Not only Youtube, but most media suffers from a surfeit of adverts. I can understand their dilemma as the traditional media have seen declining advertising revenues as the number of media platforms have grown. 

Offsetting lost revenue with lower prices and more ads filling the screen or page is ultimately a losing strategy. Bluntly there is too much media chasing to little advertising revenue. Advertising is displacing original content.

Historically, printed and limited TV media were able to thrive (some anyway) through advertising and cover prices. This model was broken 10-15 years ago.

Marketeers now target potential customers more directly, and the public are increasingly disinclined to pay access fees (subscriptions or pay per view). 

The media will increasingly become the preserve of the few organisation which can be profitable, or an egotistical expensive hobby, or those for whom media profile is supportive of their other principal business activities.


----------



## D_W (29 Dec 2020)

I use adblock pro - it works most of the time. I think youtube does things with certain users to see if they can work around it, but I see little compared to what one would see without it (ABP said what I said here - that if you're seeing advertisements while using an ad blocker, it's likely google has you in a group of people that they're experimenting with, and nothing will eliminate all ads). 

Realistically, a bigger problem on youtube now is that nearly all of the content is just an excuse to talk about paid content or to provide links to earn affiliate income. 

There was a suggestion to look at a low cost anvil on amazon in the hand tool forum. It's a legitimate suggestion. The post provided a link to a youtube content provider showing an array of tests for the amazon anvil disgused as a helpful discussion. The reality is that videos like that appear over and over (first the intro, then the test, then how to fettle the amazon anvil, etc) so that the content provider can try to get affiliate income driving buyers to amazon to buy the anvil. That's an economic reality, but it's also an incentive for youtube to promote those types of videos more than videos that have little to no ad revenue or link-through revenue generation veiled as "Reviews". 

Is that illegal? No. What's dishonest about it? It creates the illusion that the content provider was actually interested enough in the item being pushed to buy it and try it when in reality, they were just looking for something they could get other people to buy from amazon by clicking on the link in their description. Meanwhile, the world of options that doesn't gain link-through revenue is ignored, showing a biased view to "friends" who tune in to see the video. A very one-sided friendship, often including patreon begging beyond that.


----------



## Chip shop (30 Dec 2020)

Blister said:


> Anyone else getting fed up with youtube ?
> 
> Now not content with making you view 1 advert that you have no intrest in
> 
> ...



At least YT gives YOU the option, unlike the BBC and their Director General. Watch it or don't watch it, pay your subs or watch the adverts...the more on-demand content available the better, at least it doesn't make us watch bloody Eastenders.


----------



## mg123 (30 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> I use adblock pro - it works most of the time. I think youtube does things with certain users to see if they can work around it, but I see little compared to what one would see without it (ABP said what I said here - that if you're seeing advertisements while using an ad blocker, it's likely google has you in a group of people that they're experimenting with, and nothing will eliminate all ads).
> 
> Realistically, a bigger problem on youtube now is that nearly all of the content is just an excuse to talk about paid content or to provide links to earn affiliate income.
> 
> ...


Yeah that's spot on, I rarely find a video that isn't an advert disguised as a review


----------



## IDIY (30 Dec 2020)

Surely any half decent YouTube contributor does it at considerable personal investment of both time and money. This is then offset by however they make money from YouTube, again a facility that costs money to provide massive storage and infrastructure. This is paid for buy advertising and subscription revenue. So is it unreasonable to inflict adverts on those who choose not to subscribe? Even those who moan about the BBC Licence fee accept that doing away with it should involve the BBC having to get revenue from advertising like every other broadcaster.


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

clogs said:


> whats available for Mac please.......?


The tip! As soon as I can justify a new PC that's where my Mac is going. 

John


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

IDIY said:


> Surely any half decent YouTube contributor does it at considerable personal investment of both time and money. This is then offset by however they make money from YouTube, again a facility that costs money to provide massive storage and infrastructure. This is paid for buy advertising and subscription revenue. So is it unreasonable to inflict adverts on those who choose not to subscribe? Even those who moan about the BBC Licence fee accept that doing away with it should involve the BBC having to get revenue from advertising like every other broadcaster.


All you have to do with regard to the BBC licence fee is tell the BBC, through their website, that you no longer watch BBC, use no iPlayer and that you don't watch any other live TV. They will send you a letter thanking you for the information and inform you that they will make a check in 2 years time. I am never buying another TV licence.

John


----------



## NickVanBeest (30 Dec 2020)

Adverts on YouTube? What are you talking about?  

Have Adblock+, Ghostery and Privacy Badger installed, and not sure which one blocks the ads, but it works like a charm! No ads on YT, no ads on news sites, nada!


----------



## Woodmatt (30 Dec 2020)

Just added Ublock origin to my Firefox and watched a couple of Youtube videos and not a single advert,so thanks for creating the post Blister,brilliant


----------



## geraldmartin (30 Dec 2020)

Try Dynamo for Mac.


----------



## LostOZ (30 Dec 2020)

Sorry, but nothing in life is free. If you are not paying the vendor then you are the revenue stream. 

YouTube users upload more than *500* hours of fresh video per minute, YouTube revealed at recent press events. That works out to 30,000 hours of new content per hour, and 720,000 hours of new content per day.

This all sits on computers in data centres across the globe, this is so you don't have to wait for the video to load, anyone then has been using the internet or YouTube/vimio etc for more than ten years will remember the delays in videos starting and stopping while being played.

Adverts are to allow the myriad of videos on the many different subjects, and not removing them after x days, this has to be paid for some how. I for one are happy to have access to this content when I want it and don't want to pay a monthly subscription. This I wait the five second the advert and then click the skip advert button.

Sorry but this is the way they make money, and yes they make a lot of money, far more than they should, but that I the way of the world.


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Not only Youtube, but most media suffers from a surfeit of adverts. I can understand their dilemma as the traditional media have seen declining advertising revenues as the number of media platforms have grown.
> 
> Offsetting lost revenue with lower prices and more ads filling the screen or page is ultimately a losing strategy. Bluntly there is too much media chasing to little advertising revenue. Advertising is displacing original content.
> 
> ...





NickVanBeest said:


> Adverts on YouTube? What are you talking about?
> 
> Have Adblock+, Ghostery and Privacy Badger installed, and not sure which one blocks the ads, but it works like a charm! No ads on YT, no ads on news sites, nada!


I watch YouTube mostly through my Amazon Firestick and I am unsure if adblockers will work with my TV. Not a smart TV. So I have to put up with ads I can't skip over. No big deal.

John


----------



## Peri (30 Dec 2020)

Not going to miss my 50p a week then


----------



## pcb1962 (30 Dec 2020)

LostOZ said:


> YouTube users upload more than *500* hours of fresh video per minute, YouTube revealed at recent press events. That works out to 30,000 hours of new content per hour, and 720,000 hours of new content per day.
> 
> This all sits on computers in data centres across the globe, this is so you don't have to wait for the video to load, anyone then has been using the internet or YouTube/vimio etc for more than ten years will remember the delays in videos starting and stopping while being played.
> 
> Adverts are to allow the myriad of videos on the many different subjects, and not removing them after x days, this has to be paid for some how. I for one are happy to have access to this content when I want it and don't want to pay a monthly subscription. This I wait the five second the advert and then click the skip advert button.


You are talking here about paying Google for providing the service. 
I think that most of the other replies here are talking about payment to the content creator. 
These are 2 separate issues. 
I have no objection to paying either by sitting through a few adverts, although the quantity of adverts is becoming excessive recently.
What I object to is a bloke in a workshop full of expensive tools that a large proportion of his viewers probably couldn't afford (and many of the tools have been gifted to him in return for exposure anyway) constantly begging you to join his Patreon and pay him directly for making the videos.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2020)

IDIY said:


> Surely any half decent YouTube contributor does it at considerable personal investment of both time and money. This is then offset by however they make money from YouTube, again a facility that costs money to provide massive storage and infrastructure. This is paid for buy advertising and subscription revenue. So is it unreasonable to inflict adverts on those who choose not to subscribe? Even those who moan about the BBC Licence fee accept that doing away with it should involve the BBC having to get revenue from advertising like every other broadcaster.



I don't really have a problem with someone being a shill. I prefer they disclose it rather than hiding it in mice type or failing to mention it at all (as is the case with a lot of paid promotion junk where the seller not only gets junk from someone for free, but off the record of youtube, gets a flat fee to show whatever they're shilling. A couple of other video makers outed this by offering popular channels money to pimp their product and receiving forms in response that showed their payment terms for fee plus revenue sharing for items sold - as in, it wasn't entrapment reporting someone for taking money). 

I will watch a channel that is forthright about paid promotion. Most of their non-paid videos tend to be genuine and the others are humorous often meeting the terms of the paid promotion rather than lying about the motive for the video. When I see someone doing a paid promotion video and not disclosing it, or with a string of product "demo" videos or tip videos where only items with link through revenue are shown, then I leave a stinky comment in a video and unsubscribe. To me, that's a lack of disclosure. If you watch a video and you know the method of revenue was chosen first and the item second, you know that it's vastly different than digging out something someone had for 10 years and linking places to buy it. 

As far as entitlement, if you make videos, you're entitled to try to make money on them. I'm entitled to point out when someone isn't disclosing it to try to improve the balance of legitimate videos vs. people farming viewers. This is drastically different than someone just turning on advertisements to make a few bucks - it's an undisclosed feeling of entitlement, usually with a fake friendly ("i'm being helpful to you sharing what I know because I'm such a good person") persona. 

The quality of the content was a lot better when there wasn't really any way to make money other than ad revenue, but the bottom dropped out and "advisory" services for channels hoping to get a slice of revenue made most of what's out there uniform and crappy. Very well produced high volume garbage.


----------



## threedee (30 Dec 2020)

Haven't seen adverts for years on YT, thanks to APB and now uBlock, my main issue is smart tv's not able to use such blocking facilities. There's PiHole for blocking ads before it even hits browsers of any kind on the entirety of your home network - PiHole. I really need to look into it as my kids getting slammed with ads while they watch YT on TV mostly, not on ad-blocked PCs.

I have physically cut my aerial cables, so no more "TV" in my house  Over xmas watched some tv over at my parents - my god the adverts - 20minutes of every hour of any useful viewing is loaded with ads. Noped out real quick and went back to over-eating and watching stuff on ad-less YT.


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

pcb1962 said:


> You are talking here about paying Google for providing the service.
> I think that most of the other replies here are talking about payment to the content creator.
> These are 2 separate issues.
> I have no objection to paying either by sitting through a few adverts, although the quantity of adverts is becoming excessive recently.
> What I object to is a bloke in a workshop full of expensive tools that a large proportion of his viewers probably couldn't afford (and many of the tools have been gifted to him in return for exposure anyway) constantly begging you to join his Patreon and pay him directly for making the videos.


I just switch off my hearing and engage my begging filter.
Although if I start my painting channel I shall probably be a target for Patreon.
Still, I am naive enough to believe content is King and quality is Queen.
I didn't cut my aerial; I just blanked off the socket should they ever get a warrant to check!

John


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> I didn't cut my aerial; I just blanked off the socket should they ever get a warrant to check!
> 
> John


You don't need to cut the cable or blank off the socket.
You don't require a license unless you watch or record live TV


----------



## billw (30 Dec 2020)

My mum just asked me what channel BBC iPlayer was on. I had to explain it's not a TV channel. She also never turns the TV pages past the ones that have the first five channels on and then complain there's nothing on TV.


----------



## Peri (30 Dec 2020)

My dad had a video recorder for about 4 years. One evening when I visited he wanted to record a program, so he started to record it and left the show playing on the TV.

I asked him why he didn't turn the tv off or change the channel.

"You can do that?" he said.

For years he thought you had to leave the TV show on so the vcr could pick up the signal.

Loved him to bits bless him


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

artie said:


> You don't need to cut the cable or blank off the socket.
> You don't require a license unless you watch or record live TV


Artie. That is true, but they can get a warrant to check if they have reason to suspect you are 'deceiving' them.

John


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Artie. That is true, but they can get a warrant to check if they have reason to suspect you are 'deceiving' them.
> 
> John



What's so amusing Artie?


----------



## billw (30 Dec 2020)

Arguing against the licence fee is like arguing against income tax in some respects.

Whatever you pay doesn't correlate into a direct benefit to you, but does achieve a benefit overall. I don't use the NHS much, so should I ask for a reduction in tax? Maybe the licence fee simply need sot be absorbed into the tax regime. The BBC does a lot of good work in promoting the UK's reputation abroad, does anyone refuse to pay the 0.7% of their tax that goes to overseas development? They achieve the same things really.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> What's so amusing Artie?


A warrant to see if you're watching or recording live TV. Come on.


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

Chance your arm then Artie. See how far it gets you. If the licence hounds have evidence that you are in the habit of illegally watching your TV then they can get a warrant to enter to enforce what is at present the law. 
Laugh if you like but you won't win; and no I am not an ex licence hound but I know of what I speak.

Keep your wits about you when you are driving these days too. Plod doesn't mind exceeding his or her powers, and frequently doesn't seem to know the limits of said powers.

Good luck and happy New Year

John


----------



## gregmcateer (30 Dec 2020)

Sandyn said:


> I use Chrome with AdBlocker for YouTube. It has blocked 71258 Ads and saved me 2 days, 22 hours and 1minute of my life!!


Which you then wasted explaining your workings to a load of old sods on a workshop forum


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2020)

Peri said:


> My dad had a video recorder for about 4 years. One evening when I visited he wanted to record a program, so he started to record it and left the show playing on the TV.
> 
> I asked him why he didn't turn the tv off or change the channel.
> 
> ...



I'm 44 now, and will admit as a kid, I didn't trust the VCR to tape without the TV on, either...how can you confirm what it's seeing? 

In the late 1990s, we got my grandmother a VCR. She only liked to watch one soap opera and the evening news and complained about the shows not being as good as those on in the 50s and 60s (western themed shows). 

She had a lincoln but was so cheap that she wouldn't buy a VCR. So we got her one and scraped up the then-unwanted collections of western shows that people had bought and gotten tired of. 

She never watched a single one of them that we didn't put in the VCR for her while we were there. 

And then continued to complain about having nothing to watch and nothing to do. She was in her 80s and I think she just felt that it wasn't something she should have to learn.

She also had the habit back then of "throwing" the TV remote signal to the TV. If the remote didn't work the first time, each subsequent try came with a stabbing motion in the direction of the TV to help the signal get there better (the TV remote was hers and not a foreign object (VCR) that someone brought in unrequested, so she had no problem using that).


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Chance your arm then Artie. See how far it gets you.


I don't like what you are insinuating.
I don't care how many warrants plod or Capita or whoever gets, they won't find me watching or recording live TV.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2020)

gregmcateer said:


> Which you then wasted explaining your workings to a load of old sods on a workshop forum


To be fair I'd be surprised if it took him 2 days, 22 hours and 1minute to tell us, and I for one appreciate him taking the time.


----------



## Benchwayze (30 Dec 2020)

artie said:


> I don't like what you are insinuating.
> 
> I don't care how many warrants plod or Capita or whoever gets, they won't find me watching or recording live TV.



Artie; If that's the case then Capita won't have or find any evidence; so nothing for you to worry about. 

I was insinuating nothing. Unless you count the fact your 'Come on' sounded very much like a sneer. I don't like being sneered at. Initially I shrugged it off, but ....

Just note what I say in my signature about personality and attitude? 
'Nuff said...

JW


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Artie; If that's the case then Capita won't have or find any evidence; so nothing for you to worry about.
> 
> I was insinuating nothing. Unless you count the fact your 'Come on' sounded very much like a sneer. I don't like being sneered at. Initially I shrugged it off, but ....
> 
> ...


Not getting into a pissing contest because it's pointless. But if you felt I was sneering that's in your head not mine. 
" Come on" to me meant that what evidence could Capita possibly have that would convince a Judge that I was watching or recording live TV

You also gave me some unsolicited advice about driving, which I didn't understand so I ignored it.

And just to wrap up, your sig is totally wrong. my attitude is not dependent on other people, but my reaction may be.


----------



## Benchwayze (31 Dec 2020)

artie said:


> Not getting into a pissing contest because it's pointless. But if you felt I was sneering that's in your head not mine.
> " Come on" to me meant that what evidence could Capita possibly have that would convince a Judge that I was watching or recording live TV
> 
> You also gave me some unsolicited advice about driving, which I didn't understand so I ignored it.
> ...


Please yourself. You upset me and my attitude toward you alters to suit. Call it reaction if you wish. To wrap up; your belligerence is your problem now, not mine. As we are nit picking it is MIGHT be, not MAY be.
J


----------



## Skydivermel (31 Dec 2020)

Rather than use ad blockers I watch YT on the Brave browser. No adverts.


----------



## Peri (31 Dec 2020)

Skydivermel said:


> Rather than use ad blockers I watch YT on the Brave browser. No adverts.



Thanks for the info - I'd haven't heard of that one.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Please yourself. You upset me and my attitude toward you alters to suit. Call it reaction if you wish. To wrap up; your belligerence is your problem now, not mine. As we are nit picking it is MIGHT be, not MAY be.
> J


No belligerence from me.
My point was, you don't need a license to own a TV, you don't need a license, to plug it to the wall, you don't need a license to attach an antenna.
Which you agreed with.
Then you started a different subject about warrants etc.
Now you're accusing me of being belligerent
I'm done with you..


----------



## Benchwayze (31 Dec 2020)

Never mentioned licences for all those things you listed. 

However, we do need a licence to view BBC, use iPlayer and watch any other live TV legally. We know that, and If one gets caught out, one gets fined. All I wanted to do was inform people who don't know, that they can just tell the BBC they wish to opt out of the licence fee; and what can happen if they just flout the rules. If you read my initial post on that you would have seen that your post merely repeated what I said. *You can just tell the BBC you don't use their services or products. *

The fact is enough people every year get prosecuted and fined for not having a licence when they need one. To prosecute a case the 'authorities' need evidence. To get that they often have to enter premises. They don't have any legal power to do that (Silly as it seems) and the offender doesn't HAVE to let them in. In this case a warrant is called for, to enforce the rules, or gather evidence. What exactly they seek I have no idea, but usually they catch the offender actually viewing! If that information prompts a 'Come on' from you, either as a sneer or not, then that's your problem Artie not mine. 

The fact is that's the law at the moment, and it makes no difference if it doesn't sit well with you. All I meant by 'chance your arm' was, if you think you know better, then 'suck it and see', as they say. I was not implying that you would break the law. 
NMTBS.
J


----------



## gregmcateer (31 Dec 2020)

artie said:


> To be fair I'd be surprised if it took him 2 days, 22 hours and 1minute to tell us, and I for one appreciate him taking the time.


I was just being silly, Artie. I too totally appreciate his and everyone posting their knowledge here. I'm probably being fuddled by 2020's multiple kicks to the head!
Here's hoping for 2021


----------



## pcb1962 (31 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> All I wanted to do was inform people who don't know, that they can just tell the BBC they wish to opt out of the licence fee; and what can happen if they just flout the rules. If you read my initial post on that you would have seen that your post merely repeated what I said. *You can just tell the BBC you don't use their services or products. *


That isn't really accurate though.
First, it's not the BBC that you need to tell, it's TV Licensing, and second, it's not just the BBC's services or products that you mustn't use, it's the products of *any live TV broadcaster. *You still need a TV licence for example even if you only ever watch Sky.



> The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
> 
> *watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel*
> *watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service* (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)


----------



## Benchwayze (31 Dec 2020)

pcb1962 said:


> That isn't really accurate though.
> First, it's not the BBC that you need to tell, it's TV Licensing, and second, it's not just the BBC's services or products that you mustn't use, it's the products of *any live TV broadcaster. *You still need a TV licence for example even if you only


Like I said
LIVE TELEVISION. 
No I don't watch Sky or use any other subscription TV. I stream or watch my own DVDs and tapes.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

coach up a guy from the states here. What's the BBC licensing fee? Does every citizen have to pay some annual fee to be able to watch TV legally?


----------



## pcb1962 (31 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> coach up a guy from the states here. What's the BBC licensing fee? Does every citizen have to pay some annual fee to be able to watch TV legally?


Generally each household needs a licence, not each person. Details are here


----------



## sploo (31 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> coach up a guy from the states here. What's the BBC licensing fee? Does every citizen have to pay some annual fee to be able to watch TV legally?











Television licensing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Droogs (31 Dec 2020)

It used to be a licence that allowed you to operate a device capable of receiving radio transmissions and outputing it as audio. Then after TV started you could choose to have either a radio licence or a TV licence to operate a device capable of receiving tv transmissions and letting you view them. The licence for TV was available eventually in 2 versions one for Black and white (cheaper) and colour. In the 80's is just became a tv licence and now it is to allow you to operate any device (doesn't matter if you watch live or not) capable of receiving a real time broadcast through any medium including the internet and allowing you to watch. I avoided paying a licence from 98 until 2010 as I only watched things that I downloaded from sites such as hulu etc. Cant remember the first one I used. But since UK broadcasters started using the web to stream live/realtime broadcasts you have technically needed to have a licence for any capable device. They have sent inspectors round 3 times to see me, the last in 2015 and not bothered me since


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

bizarre....though I vaguely recall having someone tell me that over the air TV isn't free everywhere. I'm guessing that license fee funds the BBC and is just the way it was set up originally (vs. being ad funded originally as it was here when radio tycoons realized they could place ads on TV, too). Pay TV didn't exist here until about 40 years ago and I remember as a kid, it was an exotic thing "your parents have CABLE??!!!????!"


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

oh my! I figured the fee would be the equivalent of $15 or so.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2020)

Droogs said:


> But since UK broadcasters started using the web to stream live/realtime broadcasts you have technically needed to have a licence for any capable device.


I don't believe that is correct.
A license is not required to own equipment capable of receiving and or displaying live tv broadcasts.
A license is required to watch or record said transmissions.
That was what TV Licensing told me.
If you show me I'm wrong. I will not hesitate to apologise and will be grateful for the education.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> bizarre....though I vaguely recall having someone tell me that over the air TV isn't free everywhere. I'm guessing that license fee funds the BBC and is just the way it was set up originally (vs. being ad funded originally as it was here when radio tycoons realized they could place ads on TV, too). Pay TV didn't exist here until about 40 years ago and I remember as a kid, it was an exotic thing "your parents have CABLE??!!!????!"


The uk license fee isn't that expensive for what you get I suppose.
The problem I have have is that the BBC get it all, but we have to pay for all the other channels which don't benefit from it.


----------



## Droogs (31 Dec 2020)

As the inspector told me the licence is to allow you to operate a device capable of 

as lifted from TV Licencing web site

A *TV Licence* is a legal permission to _*install or use television equipmen*_t to receive (i.e. watch or record) *TV* programmes, as they are being shown on *TV* or live on an online *TV* service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up *TV*, on BBC iPlayer. .


----------



## Droogs (31 Dec 2020)

The BBC have for the last 12 years been trying to have the law amended to include a phrase such as "operating a personal computer and or a smartphone" which I hope they never succeed as I only use a computer to watch things on, although it has a very large computer monitor


----------



## powertools (31 Dec 2020)

Droogs said:


> The BBC have for the last 12 years been trying to have the law amended to include a phrase such as "operating a personal computer and or a smartphone" which I hope they never succeed as I only use a computer to watch things on, although it has a very large computer monitor




And that without doubt is how all this will end.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

artie said:


> The uk license fee isn't that expensive for what you get I suppose.
> The problem I have have is that the BBC get it all, but we have to pay for all the other channels which don't benefit from it.



does this make the BBC commercial free, then? It would be lovely if you could skip the BBC if you chose and just purchase the other channels.


----------



## Droogs (31 Dec 2020)

It is free of paid for adverts and up until around 10 years ago their programs were around 10 - 15 minutes longer in length. many in my family have scriptwriting experience with them and the commercial tv stations and hated doing BBC work as it was a lot longer to write for. 50 - 55 minutes etc rather than 40 for commercial tv. Now however they have programs the same lengrth as commercial tv and fill the space with adverts for their own programming and claims for how important they are to the nation. meh


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> does this make the BBC commercial free, then? It would be lovely if you could skip the BBC if you chose and just purchase the other channels.


It's commercial free in the sense that there isn't 20 minutes out of every hour pushing washing powder.
BUT there is loads of product placement and government propaganda which the license payer pays for.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2020)

From the TV Licensing site.



You’ve always needed a TV Licence to watch TV channels ‘live’ (as they are broadcast). And to watch BBC programmes on iPlayer. But things are changing constantly in the world of TV.
More online services are now scheduling live TV programmes. That means it can be hard to keep track of when you need a TV Licence, and when you don’t.
*Make sure you’re not missing anything*
Before you tell us you don’t need a TV Licence, we just want to make sure there’s nothing you’ve missed, or may miss in the future.
*Do you or anyone in your household ever:*




Watch, or record TV programmes live on any channel
e.g. ITV, E4 or Dave - not just the BBC?



Watch or record TV programmes live on any paid-for TV service
e.g. Sky, Virgin or BT?



Watch or stream TV programmes live on an online TV service
e.g. ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV or Sky Go?



Watch or record TV programmes live on foreign channels, via satellite or online streaming?



Download or watch any BBC programmes
on iPlayer?

This applies
to any devices
you may use.




Phone




Computer




Television




Tablet




Console

*Answered YES to any of the above?*
You do need a TV Licence. For just 43p a day you can enjoy the full live TV experience across all channels and TV services - and BBC programmes on iPlayer.
Buy a TV Licence
*Answered NO to all of the above?*
Please let us know you don’t need a licence here.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

artie said:


> It's commercial free in the sense that there isn't 20 minutes out of every hour pushing washing powder.
> BUT there is loads of product placement and government propaganda which the license payer pays for.



That sounds like PBS here, but PBS gets some government money and then badgers viewers the rest of the time. They try to sell goofy stuff (like marginal musicians or B-acts, and nutrition gurus). It used to be that they'd do this about one month out of each 6, you'd tune in and during that month, you couldn't figure out WTF was on at one time because they'd be stumping and showing people manning phones. They still do that even though I doubt many people call vs. doing it online. It's really odd. 

But, now that we have a .x format for channels, PBS has five separate channels and at least one is ALWAYS fundraising. Of course, now they claim that running the five channels costs a lot more so they need more money. It's never-ending begging and they boast about being commercial free, but it's as you say, propaganda about how important it is. 

It is generally more honest and objective than typical over-the-air channels, but sometimes they show bias and then go back to kayfabe.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

The concept that if you stream a sporting event on a computer live (even if it's somewhere else in the world) that you're watching live TV and you should give them $250 equivalent is very bizarre, though, and the roaming revenue agents sounds like the eastern bloc.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

"what have you been watching comrade?"

(well sir, I heard that the TV stations use a 7 second delay to avoid airing profanity, so I figured that it's not live TV. There was also some lag on the international digital feed that provided the soccer game, so also not live. Thanks!).


----------



## billw (31 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> oh my! I figured the fee would be the equivalent of $15 or so.



In reality it's not bad for three broadcast TV stations, plus one that's stream only (BBC3 which is by far the best one of the lot), and all the radio stations, and access to the iPlayer to watch stuff on demand. The BBC's commercial arm supports a lot of services too.

To give you something to compare it to, I fork out £25 a month to Sky just to watch 11 channels of sport, and even then one of them is Sky Sports NFL which is about as interesting as watching paint dry.


----------



## kinverkid (31 Dec 2020)

Skydivermel said:


> Rather than use ad blockers I watch YT on the Brave browser. No adverts.


Been using Brave for over a year now. No adverts or unwanted trackers. Changed over from Chrome when I checked to see if my local Aldi had an impact driver in stock then got suggestions for impact drivers from Amazon.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

billw said:


> In reality it's not bad for three broadcast TV stations, plus one that's stream only (BBC3 which is by far the best one of the lot), and all the radio stations, and access to the iPlayer to watch stuff on demand. The BBC's commercial arm supports a lot of services too.
> 
> To give you something to compare it to, I fork out £25 a month to Sky just to watch 11 channels of sport, and even then one of them is Sky Sports NFL which is about as interesting as watching paint dry.



The cable TV over here is expensive because of the nature of directly paying and then the back and forth negotiation between the popular channels and the cable companies. My father is a sports fanatic, and my mother watches a lot of old movies. Between the two of them, they have about 400 pointless channels of entertainment for $150 a month. 

But they're retired. 

I pay for nothing but netflix (no cable), and nobody here watches PBS, so their constant begging falls on deaf ears.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2020)

(most of us feel about like you do with the NFL, except we're usually looking for the NFL only to find that one of the networks was too cheap to buy game coverage and instead shows us soccer. They've been trying for years to get people to watch soccer over here, but almost nobody does. It must be far cheaper on some kind of promotional arrangement for them to carry games - nobody is watching it as far as viewership goes.

I would expect few people in England would be interested in the NFL - if you don't grow up playing football and watching it, it's pointless to watch - american football that is.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Jan 2021)

I always remember a TV critic here years ago saying he'd finally got a satellite dish. It was brilliant - he used to be bored to death by five channels, and now he was bored to death by sixteen.  

I cannot for the life of me see the fascination with American football ........ or baseball. or basketball. That goes for football, cricket, golf and ice hockey as well, mind. I'd sooner stick pins in my eyes than watch cricket or football - I just die a little more every minute.


----------



## billw (1 Jan 2021)

$150 a month!


----------



## Sandyn (1 Jan 2021)

kinverkid said:


> Been using Brave for over a year now. No adverts or unwanted trackers. Changed over from Chrome when I checked to see if my local Aldi had an impact driver in stock then got suggestions for impact drivers from Amazon.


I just searched for Brave and clicked on the top search result, but it was a scam site posing as the Brave.com, so be careful if you look for Brave.com.

EDIT: Seems the Tor component may flag as a false positive in some anti virus software, but I also use Tor with no problems from Bitdefender?


----------



## Chris70 (1 Jan 2021)

Ah, the Licence fee. Such an emotive subject. And way older than that other irritating subject Brexit. I have no TV aerial. I watch BBC iPlayer most of the time and pay the Licence fee because I believe it’s a legal requirement. On balance, 43p/day seems, to me, value for money.

Like probably all, on this wonderful planet of ours, being interrupted by ads mid-programme is a bane. So, we all know “the law is an ass”, but who wants lawlessness? Just be law-abiding and cough up a fraction more than 43p/day. To me, BBC = quality broadcasting, most of the time.

Ha ha, I truly can remember when there was one TV Channel and that was the BBC and ...

Now let’s all calm down and get back to things that really matter. Peace and love and chill. It’s good for your karma. Look it up!


----------



## Transit80 (1 Jan 2021)

NickVanBeest said:


> Adverts on YouTube? What are you talking about?
> 
> Have Adblock+, Ghostery and Privacy Badger installed, and not sure which one blocks the ads, but it works like a charm! No ads on YT, no ads on news sites, nada!



Done the same on Faceache as well!!!!!


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2021)

billw said:


> $150 a month!



If you're willing to buy top tier tv and on demand rubbish as well as a bunch of a la carte channels, the sky is the limit. My dad has all of the typical premium unlimited movie channels, the pro sports networks and a few of the full college conference athletic channels. He's bonkers about sports. If a game isn't televised in your area by contract, you can just switch to it no matter the time or location.

For me, you quickly realize the thrill wears off and the stuff is there but you don't watch it. For my dad, sports all day, all night. If he's building something, he dials it up in his work area. Child of the original tv generation, I guess. He goes to the internet only to check email and read sports news.


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2021)

Last night, I saw the bbcworld news channel....on pbs. Had a fancy set and high production value. I guess we get it courtesy of your license fee payment!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 Jan 2021)

R


D_W said:


> Last night, I saw the bbcworld news channel....on pbs. Had a fancy set and high production value. I guess we get it courtesy of your license fee payment!


An American girl once told me that she could never trust anything the BBC World News put out, because the presenters weren't glossy and shiny and beautiful, in that bizarrely false American style. They are too ugly to be believable, and those teeth! It's all about what you are used to, I suppose. Fake teeth, hair, chest and complexion make for honesty and integrity in some circles.


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2021)

She must not have turned the TV on here. Most of the people on the local news channels are funny looking, and the older presenters even on cable channels often look funny. They look doubly stupid when they have plastic surgery and look funny and fake at the same time. 

There are a few superficial people like that in the US, but they tend to work with each other (as in, sales managers with big sales goals tend to hang out with people who think everyone is looking at them all the time, and impressed by them). 

The rest of us don't care. When you get into the rural areas, the people prefer your example of BBC. 

corrective tooth stuff didn't become more standard until the last 3 decades. When I was a kid, if it was for cosmetic purposes only, perhaps half of kids got it, the other half didn't. I didn't (but don't have bad teeth - the dentist offered to change the angle of them slightly for cosmetic purposes and my parents told him to pound sand).


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2021)

The one humorous thing we get from our friends in the UK (who visit us sometimes) is their chiding us over our news channels (We don't watch them). 

They quite often tell us that BBC has no biases. I'd imagine BBC is more down the center than our channels that like to pick one direction of weirdness or another, but the idea of any TV program with self-interest in anything being unbiased is funny. I suggested that perhaps folks in the UK tend to have a more uniform acceptance of a certain bias, but I've never met anyone or any company without biases. 

The reason I don't watch news here isn't the issue of biases, but rather if there's something on the news that pertains to you (rare) that's worth actually watching, you can often find far better information in the same time by looking online. E.g., at the outset of covid, I wanted to know outcomes for actual spreading. It wasn't difficult to find on our NIH site here - data from italy and china. It spread in enclosed spaces and I instantly stopped with the hand washing foolishness and avoided enclosed spaces with still air and other people in them. Needless to say, we haven't gotten covid despite it being dense here. It took me a 10th of the time to figure that out reading actual study information on the NIH site vs. watching endless news programs changing their recommendations. 

When fauci came out suggesting nobody should wear a mask, I said to my wife "that guy right there is an a-hole - he's telling us to wash our hands which doesn't have much to do with transmission, and telling us not to buy or wear masks which does - I'm sure he's protecting the fed gov's ability to buy and hoard masks and I'm sure they'll sit on them". It took a long time for the CDC to finally admit that transmission by touch is unlikely or that outdoor transmission of any type is a very small amount and chance. Meanwhile, the nutballs in my neighborhood are washing their hands all over the place, and having their kids run to the center of the yard any time anyone walks down the street. 

My spouse responded "why would they tell everyone to wash their hands then?". To keep people busy and make them think they're doing something productive - just like the WWII scrap drives.

So, if the covid news is like that (inaccurate, constantly changing, not related to reality), what makes us think that other items we haven't researched are reported accurately? It's 90% entertainment, and I guess marketing a product ("summarized news") under the guise that "you won't be informed if you don't watch". It's antiquated and unnecessary and just biased to ratings. 

No thanks for any of it. 

(also read early chinese study data on hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir and saw that neither did much of anything. Two sides of politics here picked a favorite on each side, all the way up to our government making a spurious recommendation for remdesivir when it showed no significant statistical confidence. That was well received because half of the population hates trump and his ineffective treatment. Meanwhile, a couple of small foreign studies showed steroids and vitamin D in large doses both have significant efficacy. There's still a serious lack of follow-up on vitamin D and your health system - the NHS - sees one foreign study after another with statistical significance and says "we will continue to watch". 

Watch what? Watch it work while our two supposedly more advanced governments do nothing to do a controlled study on it and significantly reduce hospitalizations and deaths?


----------



## NormanB (1 Jan 2021)

pcb1962 said:


> You are talking here about paying Google for providing the service.
> I think that most of the other replies here are talking about payment to the content creator.
> These are 2 separate issues.
> I have no objection to paying either by sitting through a few adverts, although the quantity of adverts is becoming excessive recently.
> What I object to is a bloke in a workshop full of expensive tools that a large proportion of his viewers probably couldn't afford (and many of the tools have been gifted to him in return for exposure anyway) constantly begging you to join his Patreon and pay him directly for making the videos.


I would not be so mealy mouthed about it. Look at young Leo of Tally Ho. He puts out the standard ‘begging bowl’ and never fails to thank his contributors. If he had not generated the financial support he has has garnered then I doubt the project of ‘restoring’ Tally Ho would have progressed one tenth of the way it has. Leo is a very talented lad and is an inspirational character. It is fortunate that he has many supporters from the USA as for all their faults Americans are much more inclined to be both much more hospitable and generous than say Brits, who by character are more reserved particularly when it comes to putting their hands in their pockets. It is also wonderful to see how this young chap has galvanised and inspired so many other young people who volunteer their time to work on the project.

if this has persuaded you to recalibrate for 2021 and exorcise your ‘Marley‘s Ghost’ then pop over and have a look at his work and maybe bung him some financial support. Leo will make much tangible use of it than the Chancellor.

Tally Ho


----------



## Blister (1 Jan 2021)

Skydivermel said:


> Rather than use ad blockers I watch YT on the Brave browser. No adverts.



You Sir are my saviour , Just viewed a YT video and for the first time EVER , NO ADDS , Thanks you


----------



## pcb1962 (1 Jan 2021)

NormanB said:


> I would not be so mealy mouthed about it. Look at young Leo of Tally Ho. He puts out the standard ‘begging bowl’ and never fails to thank his contributors. If he had not generated the financial support he has has garnered then I doubt the project of ‘restoring’ Tally Ho would have progressed one tenth of the way it has. Leo is a very talented lad and is an inspirational character. It is fortunate that he has many supporters from the USA as for all their faults Americans are much more inclined to be both much more hospitable and generous than say Brits, who by character are more reserved particularly when it comes to putting their hands in their pockets. It is also wonderful to see how this young chap has galvanised and inspired so many other young people who volunteer their time to work on the project.
> 
> if this has persuaded you to recalibrate for 2021 and exorcise your ‘Marley‘s Ghost’ then pop over and have a look at his work and maybe bung him some financial support. Leo will make much tangible use of it than the Chancellor.


Wow, any more unwarranted insults you'd like to hurl in my direction?
I do actually support a number of YouTubers on Patreon, they are all musicians and sailors for whom YouTube is a minor sideline, not professional 'content creators' who already have a workshop full of tools that most of us could never aspire to.


----------



## JohnPW (2 Jan 2021)

Droogs said:


> As the inspector told me the licence is to allow you to operate a device capable of
> 
> as lifted from TV Licencing web site
> 
> A *TV Licence* is a legal permission to _*install or use television equipmen*_t to receive (i.e. watch or record) *TV* programmes, as they are being shown on *TV* or live on an online *TV* service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up *TV*, on BBC iPlayer. .







__





Legal framework - TV Licensing ™


Legal framework - Information about what TV Licensing do and how we do it.




www.tvlicensing.co.uk





Further down:
*



Is a TV Licence required to own a television set?

Click to expand...

*


> You don’t need a TV Licence to own or possess a television set.


You have to read info from TV Licensing very carefully as they're deliberately vague in places and leave out info.

In summary:
A licence is needed for watching or recording live broadcast TV (any channel including streaming over the internet).
A licence is needed for watching or recording TV from the BBC's iPlayer, both live and "catch up" ie after it has been broadcast.

You don't a licence:
to own or stall or use equipment that is capable of receiving live TV.
to watch catch up TV from any channel except the BBC.

Also you don't need to contact TV Licensing to tell them you don't need a licence, in fact the best thing is to ignore them completely.

The TV Licence is unenforceable and operates on an honour system. TV Licensing cannot enter your home without your permission, and they can only get a search warrant if they have actual evidence that you're watching or recording TV illegally, not simply because you refuse to let them in.


----------



## LostOZ (29 Jan 2021)

pcb1962 said:


> You are talking here about paying Google for providing the service.
> I think that most of the other replies here are talking about payment to the content creator.
> These are 2 separate issues.
> I have no objection to paying either by sitting through a few adverts, although the quantity of adverts is becoming excessive recently.
> What I object to is a bloke in a workshop full of expensive tools that a large proportion of his viewers probably couldn't afford (and many of the tools have been gifted to him in return for exposure anyway) constantly begging you to join his Patreon and pay him directly for making the videos.



There is two bits to this, the first is if the vehicle was not there the content could not be shared, and the second and the part the first point relies upon is the content.

Both need funding to allow growth, this google allow free access, but you have to put up with adverts, and the content provider can use patron to have the individuals pay for the content and thus allowing them to add more content. 

At the end of the day it is down to individuals to pay for their content and chose if and who they pay.


----------



## starlingwood (29 Jan 2021)

Blister said:


> Anyone else getting fed up with youtube ?
> 
> Now not content with making you view 1 advert that you have no intrest in
> 
> ...



I wish the adverts were targeted. I get some silly app game thing or some online casino both of which I couldn't be further from entertaining. At least with Facebook you get the targeted ads and they can be really useful.


----------



## sammy.se (29 Jan 2021)

The TV licence is an outdated, poor value tax.
I haven't paid it in 18 years, and I don't miss live TV one bit. 

I get Netflix and Amazon prime combined for a TV licence cost. 

The sooner it's scraped, the better.
Replace it with a BBC subscription service. If the BBC is as good as some people believe, they will be plenty of subscribers.

It's a horrible tax.


----------



## D_W (29 Jan 2021)

Chris70 said:


> Peace and love and chill.



they could use that as part of an advertising gimmick. Peace, love and chill....don't forget the license bill..

Peace, love and chill.....don't forget the license bill......

if you do, you'll see...

stars, bars and repossession of your cars. 

Happy day, your friends at the BBC!!


----------



## Britman (1 Feb 2021)

As I ditched the TV licence because I don't watch live broadcast TV I put those funds toward YT premium. £11 well spent IMO. No adverts and a tiny slice of that £11 does actually find it's way to the creators.

Bonus is you get YT music which I've found to be way better than Amazon Prime Music.


----------

