new tv licensing laws

[marcros]

For anybody that exclusively watches catchup and non-live TV, beware of the new TV licensing laws that come into force today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030

I presume that it catches you if you have the capability to do so too, so anybody with a computer, tablet etc will need a license now.

 

[Rorschach]

You only need it if you actually use the iplayer. Other TV catchup sites are exempt. As for watching TV without a license, well you have to get caught, which is nigh on impossible if you are sensible, watching on your tablet/computer may or may not make it easier for them to catch you, remains to be seen really. Personally I don't think it will make much difference.

 

[DiscoStu]

Actually it's pretty easy to get caught. Most people have a TV and therefore most people need a TV licence. It's therefore very easy to check on those that don't have a TV licence. My uncle doesn't have a TV licence and get a visit every now and again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marcros]

and rightly so- if people access or can access the bbc services, then they should have to pay.

 

[Rorschach]

Actually it's pretty easy to get caught. Most people have a TV and therefore most people need a TV licence. It's therefore very easy to check on those that don't have a TV licence. My uncle doesn't have a TV licence and get a visit every now and again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only if you let them in to check you are actually watching live TV. They have no legal right to enter your property without your permission and you don't have to answer their questions. You are perfectly entitled to tell them to sod off. Also you don't need a TV license to own a TV, only to watch live broadcasts. If you use a TV to watch DVD's or play video games then you do not need a license. We don't have a license and have never had a visit, any letters are just put in the bin, they can visit if they like but will never make it past the front step.

 

[Mr_P]

We are the BBC and we hate students.

1. Change the law so students require a license if they are living in digs.
2. Scrap BBC3
3. Laptop loophole

Of all the tax loopholes to close was this one really a big deal ?

 

[Harbo]

So you never watch BBC on your TV?
If you do you are breaking the law and increasing the amount law abiding folks have to pay.

Rod

 

[sammy.se]

So you never watch BBC on your TV?
If you do you are breaking the law and increasing the amount law abiding folks have to pay.

Rod

I have never watched Live BBC in my house - on any device - for 16 years.
I agree - if people want it, they should pay.
But if they don't, then dont force them to pay.

I watched non-live BBC programs via iPlayer up until today, because I was allowed to and the rules permitted it. But fair enough - now I'm no longer allowed to, I won't watch it.

Question is - people like me not using the service - will the TV licence payer get a reduction now there are less users?
I think not...

 

[Rorschach]

I used to watch the occasional programme on iPlayer (legal at the time). Haven't watched live BBC TV for years, probably a decade, no intention to start now. I also object to the fact that people are expected to pay for a license even if they may not watch BBC services. There are hundreds, maybe thousands by now, of TV channels you can watch but you are expected to pay just to have access to 3 of them, you should be able to opt out and only watch non-bbc channels and pay no license fee, but then of course the BBC would cease to exist.

 

[Aggrajag]

I'm perfectly happy to pay the BBC for what they give me; 16 channels of the Olympics (or other special events), BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 (online), BBC4, CBBC, BBC News & others, most of them in HD, multiple radio channels and websites and dozens of local TV & radio stations.

They produce some great stuff and some crap stuff, what I think is great others will think crap and vice versa, but they cater for everyone and are still substantially cheaper than Sky.

 

[Mr_P]

Can you get black and white monitors ?

£49 is a bargain but £149 is a bit much, not £3.8 billion well spent imvho.

 

[Droogs]

I used to watch the occasional programme on iPlayer (legal at the time). Haven't watched live BBC TV for years, probably a decade, no intention to start now. I also object to the fact that people are expected to pay for a license even if they may not watch BBC services. There are hundreds, maybe thousands by now, of TV channels you can watch but you are expected to pay just to have access to 3 of them, you should be able to opt out and only watch non-bbc channels and pay no license fee, but then of course the BBC would cease to exist.

The TV licence is not a licence to watch the BBC. It is a licence that allows you to "OPERATE ANY TV YOU OWN IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AND VIEW LIVE BROADCASTS" it is this element that has now been altered to include any electronic media device that can accesses ANY digital content that is either available whilst broadcast or for later veiwng once broadcast.

 

[Harbo]

I admit there's plenty of "free" commercial channels but they are full of adverts which really annoy.
You don't want to finish up with a TV system like the one in the States!
We try to record any Commercial programmes, when we can, just to skip over the adverts.
On the whole the BBC does a very good job but is always being squeezed by the Government with reduced funding.

Rod

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I admit there's plenty of "free" commercial channels but they are full of adverts which really annoy.
You don't want to finish up with a TV system like the one in the States!

Too right. Just look at freeview. Whenever I channel flick on there, even the channels that aren't shopping channels appear to be more often in an ad break than actually showing programmes. And the programmes are real trash, or ancient. You know when you start marvelling at the attire and hair styles of the audience that it is a bit dated ! Just got an Amazon fire thingy. Yet more channels of trash. Thank goodness for the BBC. Shame about the intimidating attitude of TV licensing though, who assume it is impossible for someone actually to opt out of watching TV at all. I did without for years, which attracted periodic harassment.

 

[woodpig]

I don't see the difference between watching a live broadcast or watching the same thing on iPlayer. If you're watching BBC content then you should pay for it. Plugging the loophole was long overdue.

 

[Rorschach]

I still think you should be able to opt out and watch non-BBC TV legally though.

 

[rafezetter]

I used to watch the occasional programme on iPlayer (legal at the time). Haven't watched live BBC TV for years, probably a decade, no intention to start now. I also object to the fact that people are expected to pay for a license even if they may not watch BBC services. There are hundreds, maybe thousands by now, of TV channels you can watch but you are expected to pay just to have access to 3 of them, you should be able to opt out and only watch non-bbc channels and pay no license fee, but then of course the BBC would cease to exist.

The TV licence is not a licence to watch the BBC. It is a licence that allows you to "OPERATE ANY TV YOU OWN IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AND VIEW LIVE BROADCASTS" it is this element that has now been altered to include any electronic media device that can accesses ANY digital content that is either available whilst broadcast or for later veiwng once broadcast.

If this is the case - who is getting the money from it? The govt whom then takes the lion share of the amount raised and only passes on a portion to the BBC or do ALL digital content producers get a share?

I doubt very much it's shared between all of them, so it's mostly the BBC who'll be getting it.

As far as the fee being cheaper than cable service, well of course it is, but then it has nowhere near the scope of things available - and ever since the BBC lost the majority of sport to said cable channels, their coverage of entertainment I'm interested in diminished to almost zero, mainly because I watch a lot of american or independant programming.

I do have a licence, but more and more frequently these last few years I've been wondering why exactly am I paying it on top of the £500 per year it costs me to have cable - and that's WITHOUT sport or films - when the majority of the programmes I record are not produced by the BBC.

There was a better way to do this, but I guess they decided to alter what was in place because it was easier for them than make it more intelligently implemented.

If they folded the TV Licence at a 50% reduced rate into cable costs via Sky, Virgin and Amazon and also required that a business broadcasting any content TV or radio (like a pub) have to pay a higher rate I'm certain they would actually recoup MORE money. They could also have required that a portion of a PPL licence - public broadcasting of music including workplaces - go to the BBC as no doubt quite a few radio's at work will have one of the BBC stations playing, ours did at my last place.

Right now a pub only has to pay the same as a house for a TV licence, yet far as I'm aware most pubs have live-in management so the BBC is getting NOTHING extra for the PUBLIC broadcasting they provide.

Sky business rates start from just £100 per month INCLUDING Sport channels etc - that's just £25 more than I would pay for my SOLO account with a sport channel, and that cost for a business is TAX DEDUCTABLE!!! in other words FREE so an increase there would mean the private sector wouldn't feel like they are being screwed.

Also... why is it exactly that I could spend 100% of my waking hours listening to BBC radio broadcasting for months and years on end and not pay a penny, but the moment I watch a two hour period drama I'm breaking the law and subject to a £1000 fine if I don't have a licence?

anyone?

Edit: Rorshach is right though - ever since cable came into effect the whole thing should have been changed, but it wasn't because they knew they could hitchhike on that particular bandwagon and still get the same income to produce content that in reality a significantly smaller portion of people would be watching than before.

Lets be frank and honest here, the BBC is a shadow of what it once was and it seems to me the only reason the BBC has survived until now is because of it's quasi parasitic business model, that if forced to fend for itself as the rest of the broadcasters do, would soon wither and die due to it's bloated financial administration.

(sorry Simon)

Do people who watch BBC in foreign countries via satellite also pay the TV.L? Why do I think the answer is a resounding NO?

 

[JohnPW]

I used to watch the occasional programme on iPlayer (legal at the time). Haven't watched live BBC TV for years, probably a decade, no intention to start now. I also object to the fact that people are expected to pay for a license even if they may not watch BBC services. There are hundreds, maybe thousands by now, of TV channels you can watch but you are expected to pay just to have access to 3 of them, you should be able to opt out and only watch non-bbc channels and pay no license fee, but then of course the BBC would cease to exist.

The TV licence is not a licence to watch the BBC. It is a licence that allows you to "OPERATE ANY TV YOU OWN IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AND VIEW LIVE BROADCASTS" it is this element that has now been altered to include any electronic media device that can accesses ANY digital content that is either available whilst broadcast or for later veiwng once broadcast.

Not quite.

You need a licence to watch or record any live broadcast TV, and now also specifically "catch-up" TV from the BBC.

You don't need a licence for "catch-up" TV from non-BBC channels, eg ITV, Channel4 etc.

 

[Stanleymonkey]

Used iplayer this morning.

Warning message pops up for old and recorded shows now.

We had lots of visits and letters when we moved to new address and didn't have a TV for the first year.

Have one now and happy to pay - quality of children's tv and no endless toy advertising is worth it alone!

It's still a recognised product worldwide - something that Britain still does well and is respected for.

Martin

 

[MIGNAL]

Let's just be clear. There is no such thing as 'free' TV or free radio for that matter. I'm not aware of anyone who makes TV or radio progs on a strictly voluntary basis, giving their time without pay. It all costs, it's just a matter of how one pays.
I don't go shopping armed with a huge list of all the adverts that have appeared on TV or radio. I pay regardless. Theoretically I have a choice but in practical terms I do not. Life is far too short to keep track of which product has appeared on TV. I know how much I pay for my TV licence, I've no idea how much I pay for commercials though. We need to get rid of this stupid idea that the Beeb costs and all the rest are 'free'. They most certainly are not and we do not have a practical real life choice in avoiding that cost either.