new tv licensing laws

[Sheffield Tony]

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

We are working on cocking this one up too though.

 

[finneyb]

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.

I agree - but its not been plugged. Legislation is less than useless if it can't be enforced and for the life of me I don't see how they can enforce this.
They could have a login that required your TV licence number. We will then have TV licence numbers for sale on fleabay.

Brian

 

[rafezetter]

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.

Unless I missed it - I don't think anyone has said they think advert subsidised TV is "free", and it's understood that the cost of any item has inherent advertising costs (along with everything else) folded into the pricetag, but here's the thing; If I don't wish to buy the ever so slightly more expensive "Poncy Craft Beer" in a pub, I don't have to - the way the TV.L works is analogous to asking for a pint of Cider then being told if I wish to buy Cider then I MUST buy a pint of "Poncy Craft Beer" first for the right to buy the cider or leave the pub. (and then giving the pint of "poncy craft beer" to the people sitting outside the pub for free.)

I don't think for a moment the BBC shouldn't get funding, there have been certain things done that only the BBC could have done, like the David Attenborough stuff; what I have a real problem with is the way you are forced under legal gunpoint and people coming to your home, to pay for a whole slew of products that you may partake of just a tiny portion and that many other people are getting "for free" - such as radio and BBC products sold overseas they receive through their CABLE NETWORK at NO ADDITIONAL COST.

There are magnitudes more people viewing BBC content in the world who are not legally obligated to pay for a TV.L. Would I be right in thinking any person anywhere in the world with an internet connection can watch BBC iPlayer? (never used it so no idea).

Here's another solution: drop the TV.L and make that pay per view. Cheap PPV but still PPV. £145 = 3 per week. Buy credit of £3 per week PER ACCOUNT - instead of per household, especially for rented accomodation where everyone knows only 1 person might buy a TV.L and the rest leech off that, and you've already increased your net income exponentially.

I'll also mention this, I live in a shared house of 6 rooms - I'm the ONLY TV.L holder and always have been in the 11 years I've been here. 7 odd years ago when they came to the door (I was late renewing it as I pay for it just once, yearly) I told them about the other tenants and how many TV.L were registered to the address? they said just 1.

Did they want the details of the others? NO. Did they ask for the landlords details? Also NO. Have they ever been back to check if this is still a HMO with multiple unrelated occupants? NO. We had a tenant whom brought one with her with a few months left on it and she had notified them of the change of address so the new tenants at her old flat wouldn't benefit from it. After it expired did she get any mail about renewing it, EVER? NO, because I checked, not out of spite but because I was curious as this ocurred after the above incident.

BBC loses money hand over fist because of a draconian, poorly thought out and implemented system, which should have been drastically changed at least 15 years ago; that exploits UK residents, allows even more exploitation, and gives a significant portion of it's content away to people whom have not paid for it. Only now are they starting to see there is a problem, mainly because they have been coming under fire, and their reaction is to close loopholes that are unenforceable.

So forgive me if I have little sympathy for the BBC and it's funding.

I'd dearly love to see the figures for total net income for the BBC on average and what percentage of that is from UK TV.L and what is from content sold overseas.

(oh and I'm led to beleive BBC talent are by far the highest paid of any UK producer)

 

[MIGNAL]

You've missed my point entirely. We don't have a real world choice. Sure you can avoid buying a certain product if you know it has been advertised on TV. How many are you realistically going to avoid?
Now tell me what was advertised on ITV last Tuesday at 8:00 PM. ? What about on the 16 th July between the hours of 2:00 pm and 5:30 pm. ?
You get my point. It's simply beyond practical capabilities to avoid products that have been advertised on TV and radio. You would have to spend your entire life researching it, then you would go armed with a huge list of products to avoid whilst shopping. That choice is only a theoretical one. No one does it. I mean not one single person have I ever met or even heard of. In other words, we pay for commercial TV and radio whether we like it or not, irrespective of whether we watch it or not.
As for people thinking that commercial TV is free. Maybe not on this forum. I've certainly come across people on other forums who do actually think it is free. . . . . until I remind them. It's very little different to a hidden tax as opposed to a direct tax. People 'feel' one whilst not thinking about the other. At the end of the day we all pay though.

 

[sneggysteve]

Without joining the various arguments above, a licence at £145 for 365 days viewing costs 40p per day. How can anyone say that this is not value for money?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

A licence fee in 2016 is a complete anomaly.

Originally few people had a TV receiver and the BBC was the only broadcaster - it was entirely fair that those who could afford the kit should pay. Even when independent TV started (1970/80s), TV ownership was still somewhat limited and reinforced the proposition that those who enjoyed the benefits of public sector TV should pay.

The world of media has changed radically - internet, catch-up, mobile, satellite etc with numerous providers. Ownership of media devices is almost universal.

The licence fee should be removed - it is simply a universal tax generally on households. Whether it is right that a state TV and media provider should be funded by the taxpayer, or even exist at all, is worth debating. But its cost should simply be covered by general taxation as is all other public service expenditure. Collecting the licence fee lost through a surcharge on the rates or general taxation would also save in the costs of collection.

 

[ColeyS1]

Same as road tax. Road tax should be gone and added to the fuel price. Those with fuel guzzlers or those who do most miles then pay fair share towards road maintenance.

Coley

 

[MIGNAL]

Without joining the various arguments above, a licence at £145 for 365 days viewing costs 40p per day. How can anyone say that this is not value for money?

I'd pay that for just the radio and their website. In fact I virtually do as I hardly watch any TV at all. I do listen to an awful lot of radio though, it's on whenever I'm working and last thing at night.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Without joining the various arguments above, a licence at £145 for 365 days viewing costs 40p per day. How can anyone say that this is not value for money?

Whether it's value or not is neither here nor there - why should someone have to buy a BBC licence to watch ITV? It wouldn't wash in any other sphere.

 

[MIGNAL]

Maybe Ford should give me a discount because I don't watch ITV.

 

[No skills]

Glad to see my BBCEXIT campaign gaining momentum.

 

[DiscoStu]

I think the issue with the TV licence is that it was original a licence to have and watch TV. We are in a very different world and that doesn't work now.

I think the best thing to do would be to scrap the licence for owning a TV and take the fees from the media companies as a media tax. In return you give them the rights to broadcast BBC content and old content / catch up etc.

Sure there will be people who just use an aerial to watch BBC who will benefit from that but everyone has freebies these days, sky or virgin so all the broadcasters would be paying therefore everyone watching would be paying. You're still paying if you watch free view. You're just paying when you buy a product you've seen advertised. The only people who would actually not pay would be anyone that just watched BBC.

I don't want the BBC to become commercial. Too many of their programmes couldn't be made commercial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rafezetter]

Without joining the various arguments above, a licence at £145 for 365 days viewing costs 40p per day. How can anyone say that this is not value for money?

It's ONLY value for money if you partake of BBC content, on a regular or even semi regular basis. I do not. Not even remotely - this past two weeks I've been binge watching the series ELEMENTARY, another Sherlock Holmes spinoff - 24 episodes per season, 4 seasons and each episode is 50 minutes or so, and btw produced in USA.

So thats £4.20 so far given to fund BBC content I have not partaken of. You might think "Meh, that's less than 2 pints of beer" and you're right, it is, but I don't drink, or smoke and that £4.20 is from just me alone.

The TV.L is and always has been tied to the funding of the BBC, and ONLY the BBC. This is the FUNDAMENTAL FLAW with the TV.L and why so many people have a problem with paying it.

I have 80gb give or take stored on my Tivo box and how much of it is from the BBC? lets look shall we?

(edit - I did actually post photos of my tivo list, but who wants to see that? Just take my word for it)

The ONLY BBC content on there is the 6 episodes of HORIZON, 3 episodes of David Attenborough stuff, and 5 episodes of Sherlock season 1 and they are ALL REPEATS from 2 or more years ago.

So that's approximately 14 hours worth of content which as already stated are actually repeats and not new content, so in my view - content I've already paid for access to watch at least TWICE.

Meanwhile in the two weeks (so far - I'm not done yet) of bingewatching ELEMENTARY, several hundred millions (at least) other people around the world have used BBC iPlayer, received BBC tv and listened to BBC radio channels without having paid the yearly fee of £145.50 to the BBC directly. (there are just 27 million registered uk households)

Please, Please give me an argument where that makes total fiscal sense?

I'd happily pay a reasonable PPV fee to watch BBC content, just as I buy music.

But ONLY when I watch BBC content from a BBC outlet - the moment it goes to another broadcaster like Sky, then far as I'm concerned BBC have been paid for it on my behalf and I'll watch it with a clear conscience.

And here's another peice of information I'd like to see on top of the percentage of net income they get from the TV.L vs other funding: what percentage of content broadcast by the BBC in the UK is genuinely NEW for that year, whether produced and broadcast by the BBC as exclusive to the BBC and it's outlets in perpituity, or paid for and broadcast on UK tv not previously available elsewhere.

oh and that isn't then sold by the BBC to another broadcaster for their own programming, such as how the David Attenborough stuff is being shown by Sky two years later, access to which is paid for by my £500 per year cable fees.

The TV.L and all the reasons given above in the thread as to why UK residents should pay it without complaint are based on the false belief that in 2016 (and since 2k imho) the BBC still delivers good value for money to ALL UK households, and no-one has yet to satisfactorily posit that they do; not just for them personally but for all uk households legally required to buy a TV.L or face a £1000 fine.

It's little short of racketeering.

edit: 2hrs later - Blimey I don't half go on, and on, and on... what a gasbag, but I still think my points are valid, if a little verbose. :wink:

 

[Benchwayze]

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.

They must have changed the law again in that case. If you owned a TV, even a broken one, you required a TV licence. (No such thing as a TV licence though; it was a licence to receive radio/TV transmissions.) Though how they work that one now TV is digital, I don't get.

I am surprised no pimply schoolboy MP hasn't realised they could find an excuse to tax PCs anyway.
Elected to serve? Huh! Tell me another. :roll:

 

[custard]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 0902113219

 

[Benchwayze]

Custard..

Am I to infer that because I expressed dissatisfaction with modern MPs, I am a 'whiny freeloader'? I sincerely hope not!

 

[finneyb]

Google has just sent me their Privacy Policy - it says that they collect data that shows eg what YouTube videos I watched, Device ID , IP Address etc. Of course, all to improve the service.

If Google can get the device ID, I suspect BBC can also get it - hence they will know if you have used iPlayer.
Anyone got the tech to confirm or otherwise?

Brian

 

[JohnPW]

I suspect if Google has a Device ID for your computer, it is only something Google has put onto your computer via cookies. You can delete cookies or set your browser not to accept Google or Youtube cookies. And also don't sign into Google during browsing, sign out and delete your cookies after you've finished eg checking Gmail or posting a comment on youtube etc.

Having said that, I think Windows 10 has a "Device ID" built in. Win 10 has been specifically designed for websites to collect your data, track browsing habits etc. Although Microsoft says they can be turned off.

You can refuse cookies from the BBC and Iplayer will still work.

AFAIK the only way the BBC can catch anyone watching TV illegally is if they knock on your door and you let them in whilst you have the TV on and signing a confession saying you've been watch TV without a licence.

 

[YorkshireMartin]

This should tell you all you need to know about the "detection methods". It's basically a load of old rubbish....but anyway, El Reg will explain it better than I ever could.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/06/bbc_detector_van_wi_fi_iplayer/

Just as an aside people. If your wireless network isn't secured to WPA2, it should be. Frankly, if you have a poorly secured, or unsecured wireless network, then TV licencing are the least of your worries.

 

[Alex H]

several hundred millions (at least) other people around the world have used BBC iPlayer,

iPlayer only works in the UK, unless you can mask the IP address of your computer with a VPN or other method