TV Licence & Iplayer

BBC want TV licence to be extended to watch TV on Iplayer

So says Bob, care to link to where someone official says this....

We had a bob before who used to do this, so do the right thing and include links to stuff you are talking about.

He's not entirely wide of the mark� probably just a bit embarrassed about the source

In reply to a post by billford:

He's not entirely wide of the mark� probably just a bit embarrassed about the source

"However, the BBC has no access to data from internet providers that would enable it to identify the names and addresses of those who watch its programmes live online".

I can see them wanting to change that, too.

And guess where a good chunk of the money for the BDUK programme came from?

Digital Switchover fund and then the fee for 2015 to 2017, so they can actually say they are paying for broadband

Well, the mail are putting their normal anti BBC spin on it, but there is a debate to be had here. the FT was reporting on it the other day.

It's all in response to BBC submissions to the Culture Select committee , which is conducting an enquiry into the BBC's future.. and while right now it really isn't an issue, it won't be long be for it is

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

"However, the BBC has no access to data from internet providers that would enable it to identify the names and addresses of those who watch its programmes live online".

I can see them wanting to change that, too.

With the prevalence of dynamic IPs I don't see how that would help anyway unless they want to introduce retrospective billing, which has it's own problems.

The most obvious way would be that, in order to watch live programmes (for which you currently need a licence), you have to create an account and log in, and your details are checked against the licence records.

Lol they could do that and an IP address isn't conclusive evidence that the account holder has accessed content , & there wont be an increase in people buying a tv licence, And the licence is for live broadcast tv, not catch up on iplayer , no one is gonna pay to watch programes weeks after they where 1st broadcast, I certainly wouldn't, as others i'm sure will agree there isn't enough content worthwile watching on the bbc most of the time , and what little i do watch doesn't warrant the full licence fee ,no where near it

And with the smart tv's and the freeview boxes with hdd they have no chance, they can block online content to those with no licence all they want, anything that people want to watch will be made available via different sources anyway,

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 24-Jan-14 11:18:56)

In reply to a post by billford:

With the prevalence of dynamic IPs I don't see how that would help anyway unless they want to introduce retrospective billing, which has it's own problems.

Dynamic IP addresses don't avoid "detection", e.g. p2p lawsuits can (and are) easily enough be issued to dynamic IP customers.

In reply to a post by billford:

The most obvious way would be that, in order to watch live programmes (for which you currently need a licence), you have to create an account and log in, and your details are checked against the licence records.

Or just require the user to input their TV licence number into the website when watching live iPlayer.

(edit: might not work if they are issued incrementally)

Edited by Oliver341 (Fri 24-Jan-14 11:23:05)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Or just require the user to input their TV licence number into the website when watching live iPlayer.

(edit: might not work if they are issued incrementally)

Well licence number and postcode, or whatever. But I think this whole argument is pretty pointless, they can't detect TV viewing in any case, despite what they may say, and it makes perfect sense to extend the licence requirement to Internet catch-up viewing; honest viewers will pay up, dishonest viewers won't, as at present.

They will change whatever it takes to keep biased AlJabeeba cash cow running. Remember when Satellite first arrived? No TV license needed, but that was soon changed. Just like the fake TV detector van adverts years ago on TV. There were a few vans for show, but they were empty!
Admitted by the BBC. It is down to enforcement officers that have to catch you watching LIVE TV, unless you are silly enough to offer them the information. Sorry about the publication!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2445153/Are-...

Edited by professor973 (Fri 24-Jan-14 11:37:21)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Dynamic IP addresses don't avoid "detection", e.g. p2p lawsuits can (and are) easily enough be issued to dynamic IP customers.

Yes- retrospectively� which was my point. They really need a "live" way of doing it.

Or just require the user to input their TV licence number into the website when watching live iPlayer.

(edit: might not work if they are issued incrementally)

I hadn't thought of that� probably not difficult to impersonate but might be effective enough for most purposes.

WRONG - They cannot detect TV viewing.

In reply to a post by professor973:

WRONG - They cannot detect TV viewing.

That's what he said

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Dynamic IP addresses don't avoid "detection", e.g. p2p lawsuits can (and are) easily enough be issued to dynamic IP customers.

Yes- retrospectively� which was my point. They really need a "live" way of doing it.

Having a static IP address doesn't mean the BBC can get your name and address in real-time though.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by professor973:

WRONG - They cannot detect TV viewing.

That's what he said

Thank you!

Seems we both have senior moments - A look above seems to show you replied to me instead of Oliver341 though could be the site. lol

Edited by professor973 (Fri 24-Jan-14 11:43:33)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Having a static IP address doesn't mean the BBC can get your name and address in real-time though.

I didn't mean to imply that it did, but it's more feasible than with a dynamic IP!

At the very least a static IP means that they can block your later attempts

In reply to a post by professor973:

A look above seems to show you replied to me instead of Oliver341 though could be the site. lol

Nope- I've only made one reply to you, that went where it was intended and included a quote.

Check the [re: <username>] links in the headers, not the sequence in flat mode.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Having a static IP address doesn't mean the BBC can get your name and address in real-time though.

I didn't mean to imply that it did, but it's more feasible than with a dynamic IP!

At the very least a static IP means that they can block your later attempts

In the initial instance it would take just as long to obtain the name & address. I also don't think they can assume the static IP address is never re-assigned to a new customer and so would have to be re-checked regularly.

I can only see this being done with a live-checking API to the ISPs, and that would work just as well with dynamic IPs as static ones assuming the ISPs systems are up to scratch (which they should be, to make sure p2p lawsuits go to the right person).

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I can only see this being done with a live-checking API to the ISPs, and that would work just as well with dynamic IPs as static ones assuming the ISPs systems are up to scratch (which they should be, to make sure p2p lawsuits go to the right person).

That could work� but I can't see the ISPs providing an API into their systems to obtain information which (afaik) currently requires a court order

In reply to a post by billford:

That could work� but I can't see the ISPs providing an API into their systems to obtain information which (afaik) currently requires a court order

Yup, static or dynamic it's a non-starter, without a change in the law.

I ALREADY HAD - Notice I said it was probably the outlay of the site. That is what I love about Fora - Everyone spends more time ridiculing others than actually helping - Lots of sad lives.

In reply to a post by professor973:

I ALREADY HAD - Notice I said it was probably the outlay of the site.

Then why say that I'd replied to you instead of Oliver341? Even without the link, the included quote makes it clear who was the intended recipient�

That is what I love about Fora - Everyone spends more time ridiculing others than actually helping

A few people do seem to find it confusing

And an IP address means nothing ,it isn't conclusive evidence that the account holder watched the content ,
So if tested in a court it would fail, as it would be heard in the magistrates court so the burden of proof would differ to what is deemed as acceptable in the civil courts ,

not only this but a judge in the usa recently dismissed a case of copyright infringement as he decided quite correctly imo that an IP address isn's sufficient to identify the person /offender

So all this talk about prosecution via IP address is non sense, The BBC will have to encrypt the online content so it can't be casually viewed, but it won't stop the flow of content available via lots of other means

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 24-Jan-14 14:02:53)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

And an IP address means nothing ,it isn't conclusive evidence that the account holder watched the content

I wonder if it makes any diff that, unlike copyright infringement where an offending individual needs to be identified, it is a household, or 'The Occupier', that needs a TV licence to watch live TV. An IP addy is sufficient to identify an address.

how do the bbc know these people are only using iplayer to avoid tax?

I am paying the licence fee, and I havent watched the bbc live on anything but iplayer probably for about 4 years.

This number of people only using iplayer will grow as its the future to watch 'on demand' not 'on schedule'.

I agree the tv licence is outdated but not because it loses people who dont use 'on schedule' but because its an outdated way to fund tv programming.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I agree the tv licence is outdated but not because it loses people who dont use 'on schedule' but because its an outdated way to fund tv programming.

Can you suggest a way that will allow me to watch a programme without it being interrupted every 10 minutes with mind-numbing junk that is repeated every 10 or 20 minutes? And a way that will cost me the same?

The BBC provides BBC1, BBC2, Radio 1,2,3,4,5 and large numbers of local stations plus the BBC3, BBC4, Alba on TV from the £165/pa licence fee. Compare that to the revenues of the main 3 independent channels and local radio and it soon becomes obvious that the BBC is extremely good value for money.

You need to consider the only reason the licence is priced as it is, is the fact you are been subsidised by many people who wouldnt be paying if they had a choice.

The fact is I only watch the bbc probably for the football league show, I occasionaly use the news site and thats it. So value for money will be different for each individual, getting umpteen radio stations doesnt mean much if I dont use them. I think I have watched a few dramas on iplayer every now and then maybe.

Most uk dramas I watch are produced by sky or channel4, but most shows I watch are american based.

So you are saying all BBC radio and television output should be on a pay-to-consume system?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So you are saying all BBC radio and television output should be on a pay-to-consume system?

It's a very odd system. Sky TV customers are forced to fund a rival of Sky's whether or not they want to watch their rival's output. It's a bit like having a £1 entrance fee at the door of Tesco to fund Asda.

I think they are talking about all I player Catch up not just real time

And you don't need a tv licence to watch catch up tv, nor should you do, as it ain't live, if they don't want to provide free to view content then they should encrypt it, they could include a code with the tv licence that licence payers could input on the web site to access content , a bit like sky player you can't watch that if you ain't a sky customer, then they can stop their whining, or the top brass could take a pay cut a trotter out of the trough and reduce the price of the licence fee
or go down the subscription pay per view route

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 24-Jan-14 18:52:46)

I could suggest how to watch all channels including Sky and BT, but I usually get banned for weeks when I do.

I'm not forced to [pay to watch Sky and BBC will be the same. Encryption will not stop folk sharing streams, just as they do for Sky.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I think they are talking about all I player Catch up not just real time

correct.

Hence my comment about 'on schedule' tv having its days numbered, 'on demand' is the future, the bbc are working it out hence the panic. But they painting it as people evading the licence fee.

I rarely watch Ch4 or Ch5 but indirectly I am paying for those and subsidising those who do watch it. Again, I have little choice in the matter.

I don't download films, watch football online, or do a lot of YouTube streaming. My broadband subscription subsidises all who do.

I could argue that is unfair. That usage should still be unlimited but charged at a commercial rate per GB, be that 10p per GB, £1 per GB, or whatever.

I don't.

I also watch less than five hours TV per week averaged over the year. I listen to a lot of Radios 3 and 4. I am therefore also subsidising heavy non-Sky TV users and other Radio channel users.

It doesn't bother me. What I get for the money is in my opinion well worth it.

We had a bob before who used to do this,

Why it's almost as though they were one and the same person, couldn't be, could it ?!?!
Shall we ask the OP if internal wiring can have an affect on ADSL services ?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I don't download films, watch football online, or do a lot of YouTube streaming. My broadband subscription subsidises all who do.

I could argue that is unfair. That usage should still be unlimited but charged at a commercial rate per GB, be that 10p per GB, £1 per GB, or whatever.

I don't.

I also watch less than five hours TV per week averaged over the year. I listen to a lot of Radios 3 and 4. I am therefore also subsidising heavy non-Sky TV users and other Radio channel users.

It doesn't bother me. What I get for the money is in my opinion well worth it.

_______________________________________________

Correct , even if it includes the cost of every new colourful anorak Chris Packham wears in every edition of nature programes !


.......does he sell them afterwards on Ebouy ?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I could argue that is unfair. That usage should still be unlimited but charged at a commercial rate per GB, be that 10p per GB, £1 per GB, or whatever.

I don't.

Good idea, may remove peak time congestion and reduce P2P.
I pay my licence fees.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It doesn't bother me. What I get for the money is in my opinion well worth it.

I can only see the number of people cancelling their TV licence increase, as viewing organically moves away from live TV to on-demand. What this means is that the licence fee for existing subscribers will have to keep increasing, to accommodate the falling numbers of people who are licenced.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So you are saying all BBC radio and television output should be on a pay-to-consume system?

I would love to, I ONLY watch Doctor Who and if I could I would happily not pay for any BBC services and just buy the next series on DVD (which I do anyways)

£165 a year saved.

I see the whole liscence fee as a waste of money given I consume 15 hours a year of BBC services.

Logic fail Adrian .

How much would the DVDs cost if they were the only thing that funded the making of the series?

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 25-Jan-14 15:00:25)

That's what the fuss is about Oliver, isn't it?

It's about time the license fee was scrapped

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

That's what the fuss is about Oliver, isn't it?

Pretty much.

If the BBC wants everyone to have a licence for watching on-demand video content, we'd need to be licenced to watch Youtube. It could end up on being a mandatory tax on broadband subscribers.

If they just want people to be licenced to watch on-demand BBC iPlayer content, they should introduce a authentication system for iPlayer, plenty of other content providers seem to manage it.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

We had a bob before who used to do this,

Why it's almost as though they were one and the same person, couldn't be, could it ?!?!
Shall we ask the OP if internal wiring can have an affect on ADSL services ?

But he will not be able to answer when on his enforced holiday!

"Rarely" means you do use the service though

NB. Earlier you said the BBC Licence was £165 - good news FYI it's only £145.50

Yep, only read that after I'd posted. It's only for 24 hrs, I'm sure he'll answer when he is back !

In reply to a post by MrTAToad2:

It's about time the license fee was scrapped

So do you want the BBC to be scrapped, funded from general taxation or wall-to-wall ads (heaven forbid)?

why are you comparing a optional broadband service especially where you can shop around to a almost compulsary tv fee?

If you watch live tv regardless if its the bbc or not then the bbc has to be paid, how that compares to you paying for broadband I dont know.

In fact the attitude of those supporting this ancient/unfair practice I think i may cancel my tv licence just to annoy. A bit less paying for all those expense spared and expensive saturday night strictly come dancing.

If the bbc is such good value for money and adored by so many then it can be funded without a tv fee simply by a optional subscription and people will gladly pay up and it carries on how it is?

indeed I pay the fee, and unless I watch the shows very quickly after they aired I have to buy a dvd, I mean what the ????

its a non profit organisation, those who support the bbc seem to absolutely love it meaning I expect they would pay double what they pay now right?

so if we assume half stop paying,. those who remain pay double, then it wouldnt need adverts.

in addition there is such things as cost cutting. The bbc has a lot of bloat and luxury expenses.

adverts between shows are ok, that could be an intermediate compromise, as long as no adverts during shows. commercial channels usually do that on various live sport events. Sky f1 races/quali no adverts, football only ads at half time, before and after.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 26-Jan-14 09:24:13)

Another weird thing about the TV licence is that if you pay by monthly Direct Debit you have to start paying for your next TV licence 6 months before it begins. So at any given time you have paid for your next 6 months of licence up front. None of my other Direct Debits work in this way.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 26-Jan-14 14:23:08)

that's the tvl goons at crapita for you

Is the d/d a straight 1/12^th of the annual fee?

If so, that sounds very similar to paying a whole year at the start of that year. Paying annually, on average over multiple years you have paid six months in advance.

Maybe ads wouldn't be such a bad thing, as the time they spend advertising themselves between programmes is getting longer.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Another weird thing about the TV licence is that if you pay by monthly Direct Debit you have to start paying for your next TV licence 6 months before it begins. So at any given time you have paid for your next 6 months of licence up front. None of my other Direct Debits work in this way.

What happens if somebody doesn't wish to renew - do they refund the full six months advance payment?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Is the d/d a straight 1/12^th of the annual fee?

If so, that sounds very similar to paying a whole year at the start of that year. Paying annually, on average over multiple years you have paid six months in advance.

If you pay annually via DD you pay the whole lot on day 1 of the licence.

If you pay monthly via DD you start paying for the licence 6 months before day 1 of the licence.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 26-Jan-14 23:13:29)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

What happens if somebody doesn't wish to renew - do they refund the full six months advance payment?

They do, but they only refund in whole quarters. So if you cancel with 5 months and 3 weeks remaining, they only refund 3 months.

Also, if you want more than 3 months of refund, you have to send them photocopied evidence that you no longer watch TV at your current premises, e.g. "a final utility bill, a tenancy agreement, confirmation of college terms, a bill of sale or receipt or a solicitor�s letter".

It's unclear how any of these items proves you no longer watch TV at your current premises.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 26-Jan-14 23:11:24)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Another weird thing about the TV licence is that if you pay by monthly Direct Debit you have to start paying for your next TV licence 6 months before it begins. So at any given time you have paid for your next 6 months of licence up front. None of my other Direct Debits work in this way.

What happens if somebody doesn't wish to renew - do they refund the full six months advance payment?

Yep. they refunded my money a couple of years back when I decided not to renew, it is now two years since I last had a Tv licence. One of the better things i have done.

I used to pay the full amount in cash a few years ago but decided not to renew in October 2012 - now I don't watch any live (or as it is being broadcast) TV

Err, yes. That's exactly what I (thought I) was talking about. The result is the same.

Are you saying if you want to pay monthly then you can't have the licence until six months after you start paying? Or that after the first six months you have to pay double for six months, before reverting to the normal monthly instalment?

Even then, I can't see any difference in the average credit/deficit balance.

M1-M6 payment P, used. M7-M12 payment 2P. Balance at the start of M13, 6P. Thereafter, the balance is always 6P.

Annually, balance at the start of M1, 12P At the end of M12, zero. Average balance 6P. Repeated for the following year.

No difference, surely?

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 27-Jan-14 00:23:24)

An analogy would be, in broadband terms:

Customer signs up to Plusnet. Plusnet charge 7 months broadband in advance on month one. On month two, normal monthly payments at regular amount start. When leaving Plusnet, the customer has to apply to Plusnet for a refund. In order to receive a refund for unused months, the customer would have to supply Plusnet with one of various form of photocopied "proof", and only blocks of three months can be refunded.

No broadband company in their right mind would try this stunt, it would be suicide. The only reason TV Licensing can do this is because, by law, people wanting to watch live TV have no other choice.

I agree the refund arrangements are suspect, though not a lot different from broadband really with minimum terms and quite steep cancellation charges from all the major ISPs.

Do you know what happens about refunds of an annual payment? I expect it is also 3-month chunks.

Refunds though are a different question. The monthly payment system doesn't really seem different in respect of the average credit balance from the annual.

Edit - the licence refund info page won't load.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 27-Jan-14 01:39:00)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Logic fail Adrian .

How much would the DVDs cost if they were the only thing that funded the making of the series?

The same as Doctor who not only makes a big profit for the BBC it is the number one income generator for them. In both sales to other TV companies around the world as well as DVD sales and other merchandise.

Top gear is number 2 and strictly is number 3.

The sales of the DVD in the UK alone makes more than it costs to make and it is seen as a cost savings exercise at BBC wales as their drama department didn't have a recurring drama to keep people occupied.

And I would happily love to see the BBC go onto a paid for model with subscription plans or even just have ads on it like any other commercial channel as they seem completely unable to cater for my entertainment needs.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Do you know what happens about refunds of an annual payment? I expect it is also 3-month chunks.

Refunds though are a different question. The monthly payment system doesn't really seem different in respect of the average credit balance from the annual.

Annual payments are also refunded in three month chunks, when TV Licensing are supplied with the photocopied "proof".

Paying annually in advance does not offer any discounts as it would with, say, Line Rental Saver, therefore I cannot see why anyone would choose to pay annually in advance rather than monthly in advance. However I suspect TV Licensing are keen to retain the annual payment option so that they can justify taking 6 months of advance payment from monthly billing customers.

I didn't even know there was a monthly payments option. (Maybe a distant recall of it being introduced). I'll stick with annual I think .

Personally I think the way the BBC is funded has resulted in some unique material over the years but now the world is a very different place.

If the BBC really feels its output is good value for money then why is it frightened of competition ?
It is quite feasible for the BBC to be a subscription service that only people who want it would pay for it but they are reluctant to go down that route as they know full well that a significant number of people wouldn't bother subscribing.

As for iPlayer it could be subscription based just like netflix or love film. I don't really care if they change the rules to require a licence to use iPlayer as long as it doesn't mean that everyone who has an internet connection is required to have a licence.

Actually in broadband terms it would be more like getting charged for daily for broadband and you start paying in the middle of the month for the broadband date that starts on 1st of the month. So, you pay 15 days in advance and 15 days in arrears. However, most broadband providers charge 1 month in advance.

If you aren't doing monthly DD for TV license then I believe you pay a whole year in advance. So, by my reckoning paying 6 months in advance is better than a year in advance?

In reply to a post by ian72:

If you aren't doing monthly DD for TV license then I believe you pay a whole year in advance. So, by my reckoning paying 6 months in advance is better than a year in advance?

Like I say, in today's day and age pretty much no company charges annually up front unless a discount is offered for doing so. So I believe TV Licensing has no justification in doing this.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Like I say, in today's day and age pretty much no company charges annually up front unless a discount is offered for doing so. So I believe TV Licensing has no justification in doing this.

Tell that to DVLA

Insurance companies too (especially for cars)� IME those that allow you to pay monthly add a premium for the privilege.

Seems standard practice in the insurance industry who mostly charge more if you want to spread the payments? Sky TV, broadband etc generally charge a month in advance (so the difference here is the length of advance rather than the practice).

And whilst it is slightly odd to do 6 months in advance of DD I seem to remember when I switched that instead of getting charged a year in advance at the anniversary I was charged 6 months in advance and then the DD started. So, from my perspective my initial outlay was lowered and that took me onto monthly payments. The only time then that it makes a difference is if I wish to cancel at which point a refund would be needed - but that would be the same position as if I had paid a year in advance. I see why people don't like it but in the end it doesn't seem that big an issue (and perhaps by collecting those the money gains interest and therefore reduces the overall cost of the fee that is charged?)

In reply to a post by ian72:

Sky TV, broadband etc generally charge a month in advance (so the difference here is the length of advance rather than the practice).

Yeah, the "default length of advance payment" is the issue here, since it somewhat justifies the six month advance payment for monthly DD customers.

My main comparison base was with other television services, e.g. Sky TV, but I accept other industries (e.g. insurance companies) may do things differently in terms of the default length of advance payment.

Caffeine top-up overdue Bill?

Charging more for monthly is identical to giving a discount for annual.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Charging more for monthly is identical to giving a discount for annual.

Not really- as Oliver implies, not if the default is annual (which it usually is).

Technically, that is not a change, as you already DO need a licence to watch programmes on iPlayer at the same time they are broadcast. The only exemption is if you only EVER watch catch-up, not in real time.

The fact they have no way of monitoring it at the moment doesn't mean people who choose to exploit it aren't still licence dodgers. You are required to have a licence, and recently that has been made explicit when you watch iPlayer.

I don't have a functioning TV receiver at the moment, so I'm watching everything on iPlayer. I did the decent thing, and paid for my licence as usual. Partly because I may fix or replace the TV at any time, and want to be covered, but partly because, even if I don't, I know I will not realistically confine myself only to catch-up, and will sometimes want to watch programmes as they are aired.

Perhaps you think it's silly to pay, if they have no way of checking? But that would be like saying it's silly not to shoplift, if you know you won't be caught.

T.

TV licence should be abolished. TV licence is wrong and out of date. Biased BBC should use subscriptions like sky does.

iplayer is basically a catch-up service, not live TV streaming so TV licence is not applicable or should it be.

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/petition/

In reply to a post by superspeed:

TV licence should be abolished. TV licence is wrong and out of date. Biased BBC should use subscriptions like sky does.

iplayer is basically a catch-up service, not live TV streaming so TV licence is not applicable or should it be.

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/petition/

Subscriiption or Licence essentially the same. Means of payment to view.
Try and watch Sky catch up services without a subscription

In reply to a post by superspeed:

TV licence should be abolished. TV licence is wrong and out of date. Biased BBC should use subscriptions like sky does.

iplayer is basically a catch-up service, not live TV streaming so TV licence is not applicable or should it be.

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/petition/

Some people see 'Income Tax' as wrong and out of date, would they be ''silly '' not to try to avoid paying their total ''calculated dues '' based on income , or instead just pay an amount to support the ''Causes ''they personally approve of, like cricket or the Royal Family or free sandbags for under sea-level housing ?.

No it's not sorry. The TV licence is forced on people who want to watch live TV, with harassment and threats, regardless if you watch the BBC or not.

Sky TV is subscription based and is voluntary. Sky doesn�t bang on your door if you don't subscribe or do they make you pay for Sky if you don't want it.

So recap. TV licences is forced and sky TV is voluntary subscription based.

Check out this forum about it all.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/

Edited by deleted (Sat 01-Feb-14 20:21:53)

That is up to them but no it's not silly. The BBC is not accountable and is corrupt.

They use threats and intimidation to make people pay for it, when we should have a choice. I would never support the BBC after the Jimmy Savile cover up anyway.

Another link http://biasedbbc.org/

Edited by deleted (Sat 01-Feb-14 20:40:29)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

So recap. TV licences is forced and sky TV is voluntary subscription based.

Absolutely right, but it's a bit more than that. Things are only ever forced upon you if you let them.

First you have to realise that every document you receive through your letter box from the state is an "invitation to contract". TV license, electoral roll, child birth registration, yada yada. By filling in the document and signing, you are entering into that contract. In the case of TV license, you're entering into a legal requirement that you pay a fee to them to permit you to watch live BBC channels. As long as you pay this, you won't hear a peep out of them.

This is done by intimidation and threats through the post. Most people succumb to it and just fill in the form, setup a direct debit, job done. But in reality, you do not need to do this. The unfortunate bit is, if you don't, you will then be constantly harassed by post, and even a visit from an "inspector" who then tries to "force" you further into contracting. Not to mention the attempts they will stoop to in order to scare you into contracting (fines, court summons etc). But remember, even a court summons is, yup, you've guessed it - an "invitation to contract". It's inviting you to visit their "place of business" to discuss why you haven't been playing by "their" rules. Deception at its best.

Of course, you could fill in the form and say "I have no TV, so no TV license required". But you still have to sign if you do that, and that's another contract. If they find out you have lied, they can legally fine you and have you again for that.

It's a farce really. I see why the TV license had some purpose and credibility in the early years of TV, when the BBC were the only TV company in the UK. But times have moved on. If anything, it's an unlawful way of extracting money out of gullible people who do not know their rights, with that money going straight into the back pockets of a very corrupt organisation. I personally have very little respect for the BBC now, given that they employed Jimmy Savile for all those years but still continue to do their "nicey nicey" Children in Need party trick every year. Honestly, they should just shut up shop and die, and take their TV license with them.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

They use threats and intimidation to make people pay for it, when we should have a choice. I would never support the BBC after the Jimmy Savile cover up anyway.

A lot of former BBC employees have now been arrested for sex offences under Operation Yewtree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree#Arrests

And of course Stuart Hall has already been convicted of multiple sex offences.

Well said and top post. Many people should take note of what you say as it's correct.

BBC is a massive dinosaurs of a organisation that needs putting down urgently.

Edited by deleted (Sat 01-Feb-14 23:56:31)

Yep, well aware and have been following this on another forum. Doesn�t change what happened and the BBC cover up though.


This is what can happen with TVL.

Ron Sinclair, assaulted by David Clark, a BBC tellytax goon .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKRyNYChYjI

Apologies for dragging an old thread up, but it seems many people last year stopped paying their TV license because they can watch all the programs they want via iPlayer catch up (which is not a live service). So rather than add adverts into the BBC iPlayer service (like ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 do) to cover costs, the government wish to adjust how the TV license (TV tax) is collected.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/14...

Really? Are they actually for real? You see, they want their money, and they're going to use everything in their power to get it!

I swear, if they start doing this, I am cancelling my direct debit with my council and I will pay them a fixed amount (minus the additional "TV license" charge) instead. If they have a problem with that, they can "invite me to their place of business" (aka court) to discuss the matter further.

This country is governed by morons of the highest order.

One Conservative has already described the idea as a "non-starter".

Already done in Germany.....

I wouldn't be uncomfortable with a reasonable subscription fee for HD news and documentaries on iPlayer catch up via a "sign in" - certainly not for soaps, light entertainment and sport though!

BBC news and documentaries are generally very well produced: one example being aviation incidents where sensationalist reporting is not given air time, reputable flight deck forums rarely criticise BBC coverage unlike the sensationalist and inaccurate reporting on other news channels and media.

the tv license is victorian, its so outdated.

If the bbc is so great value for money then make it optional, obviously its so great everyone will pay it anyway

In reply to a post by 4M2:

I wouldn't be uncomfortable with a reasonable subscription fee for HD news and documentaries on iPlayer catch up via a "sign in" - certainly not for soaps, light entertainment and sport though!

You pay for those too on the independent channels, just unavoidably (even if you don't have a TV) and not so obviously.

Company's advertising budgets are part of the price you pay for the goods and services you buy.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

If the bbc is so great value for money then make it optional, obviously its so great everyone will pay it anyway

80% of people probably just want to watch soaps, reality TV shows and "talent" contents. Do we want those people dictating the quality of the BBC? Or do we want a stripped down much cheaper BBC which focuses on core, worthwhile stuff like a quality news output and respected documentaries which might possibly raise us above the pond life mentality?

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 15-Jun-14 12:40:53)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

the tv license is victorian, its so outdated.

I'm one of those who stopped paying the licence fee but I wouldn't want to see the standard of news reporting and documentaries reduced due to the BBC's declining income. A subscription based system for catch up where one could choose categories would be OK for me.

In reply to a post by billford:

You pay for those too on the independent channels, just unavoidably (even if you don't have a TV) and not so obviously.

Company's advertising budgets are part of the price you pay for the goods and services you buy.

I do occasionally watch online the 3 minute recorded news summary on Sky when there are problems with iPlayer, but the preceding adverts can be quite an irritation

I seem to recall a post on tbb 2 or 3 years ago - from MHC? - in which the poster said his sister(?) in her work had got figures of c.£300 per year per household for the cost of commercial TV adverts built in to the cost of the products we buy.

In all the debate over the TV licences, let's not forget that it also funds the national and local BBC Radio channels even though there's now no separate radio licence - let alone a separate car radio licence as there used to be.

Car Radio Licence, like Dog Licences- had cost more to collect than the revenue it raised.

Now, how about a new licence for Meerkats?

Power to common sense!

Oops!

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 15-Jun-14 22:13:22)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

If the bbc is so great value for money then make it optional, obviously its so great everyone will pay it anyway

80% of people probably just want to watch soaps, reality TV shows and "talent" contents. Do we want those people dictating the quality of the BBC? Or do we want a stripped down much cheaper BBC which focuses on core, worthwhile stuff like a quality news output and respected documentaries which might possibly raise us above the pond life mentality?

I think the bbc has already gone down that path.

strictly come dancing is in my view a taltent contest.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I think the bbc has already gone down that path.

There's plenty of content on the BBC that can be perfectly well handled by commercial operators, that's my point. But not all of it.

"Strictly Come Dancing" is not really about talent, though the progress most celebs can make over a period is impressive.

The correct title should be "Strictly Bum Dancing", the middle word not referring to the quality, but to the part of female anatomy most routines concentrate on displaying.