Nice post if you take off the no bit, you've just explained exactly what I've said but negated it at the beginning, you silly person.
TV License
- Thread starter Liam
- Start date
Nice post if you take off the no bit, you've just explained exactly what I've said but negated it at the beginning, you silly person.
Everyone pays 6 months in advance, but what happens if you die??? Who gets that 6 months money???? They must be making millions out of dead people!!
One of the biggest questions when I worked there and to be honest there was never an official answer.
Ring them up and pose the question and wait for the ums and errs, as you know there is no answer apart from paying it as it comes in, in which case your a year in advance.
My answer to it all was number 2 post and that is to pay quarterly.
I player is not live broadcast tv, all the content is at least an hour old. This is why you don't need a licence to use I player.
The tv licence only applies if you are receiving a broadcast.
Why people continue to insist that people are obliged to pay the "idiot tax" is beyond my comprehension. lol sorry i couldn't resist....
As for the harassment, simply put the letters in the bin, along with the other junk mail. Job done.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 2,485
- Location
- Portsmouth/Salisbury
You can watch tv live on iplayer, all the bbc channels are available to stream live. (as far as I know, only used 1/2/3 myself).
That counts as receiving a broadcast.
But if you didn't know about the live bit then you are correct, you don't need one to watch the things on there.
Should read "Watch live tv" being able to receive a broadcast does not mean you need a licence, unless you watch live tv of course.
Top gear is getting more boring with each episode, it hasn't had any edge for at least two years. It's become generic pop culture rubbish. Like the car equivalent of eastenders.
You have miss read my post, if you are receiving, then you must be tuned in, which implies you are watching.
I said "if you are receiving" not "if you are capable of receiving" or indeed "watching" a broadcast.
Apologies then, most people assume that because you are able to receive a signal then you must pay, whether you watch or not.
Most people do, that why there is at least one thread per month. We are both on the same team. I don't get how some people don't get it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
How did I know, that without fail this would turn in to a huge debate. 
Everyone pays 6 months in advance, but what happens if you die??? Who gets that 6 months money???? They must be making millions out of dead people!!
Pensioners over 75 get a free TV license
It is possible to watch some TV on iplayer at the same time it's being broadcasted.
I didn't know that until I looked into whether or not a TV licence was needed for using iplayer. It appears you don't know it either. I expect most people don't know it. I haven't bothered checking it, because the main reason I use iplayer is because I can watch a program when I want rather than when it's being broadcasted.
Which I knew. Hence me saying that I don't need a TV licence for my use of iplayer.
It seems you couldn't resist ignoring my post that you're replying to, as I said I didn't need to have a TV licence and I didn't insist that everyone does.
A large part of the reason why I don't watch TV is that I've had more than enough adverts. A third of normal TV is adverts, spread out to blight every program. It isn't idiotic to pay for a few advert-free channels.
That would be fine if no-one had ever been fined for it, but they have.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Agreed, I don't mind the license fee because the few programmes that I do watch are ad free, sponsor free and in my opinion high quality. I'm happy to part with my money for MOTD, Top Gear, the Attenborough wildlife programmes, BBC News, the extensive BBC website, iPlayer, Panorama, some International football, new Family Guy, new American Dad etc. Banner and ad blockers are becoming more popular on the internet; the user's experience without the crap is better.
If anything the idiots out there are the ones paying for Sky. Not only a much dearer subscription for the same variation but everything is sponsored and/or with adverts. That's something which irritates me (another example is the way eBay has adverts even though they take a chunk out of every transaction
).
I gotta confess I do watch Sky, but that's because few other channels have hope of matching their offers for Champion's League and Premiership coverage. The subscriber in part pays for it, and so do the ad companies. For the sake of the state of football in general it'd be better if Sky could afford to give clubs less..but that's a wholly different argument.
If anything the idiots out there are the ones paying for Sky. Not only a much dearer subscription for the same variation but everything is sponsored and/or with adverts. That's something which irritates me (another example is the way eBay has adverts even though they take a chunk out of every transaction
). I gotta confess I do watch Sky, but that's because few other channels have hope of matching their offers for Champion's League and Premiership coverage. The subscriber in part pays for it, and so do the ad companies. For the sake of the state of football in general it'd be better if Sky could afford to give clubs less..but that's a wholly different argument.