Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Aye, but I'd add I don't see why I should have to watch adverts on the Sky channels when I'm paying to watch them (well I'm not, I got rid of Sky years ago and just watch sport on the net now).
TV licence dodgers may no longer face prosecution
- Thread starter philip2009
- Start date
Aye, but I'd add I don't see why I should have to watch adverts on the Sky channels when I'm paying to watch them (well I'm not, I got rid of Sky years ago and just watch sport on the net now).
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 1,531
Rarely do I watch adverts tbh, just record the program and watch it when it suits me. Means I can just fast forward through them
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
Programme Licensing.
The tv license must be paid by anybody watching any live broadcast tv channel within the uk. As this encompasses every channel then the non educational shows you insist make the whole thing worth it are in a very small minority. This is why it is classed as entertainment.
The tv license doesn't just pay for the bbc shows it pays for the equipment being used to broadcast all the channels as well as various other programme licensing and running costs. As such it cannot be avoided by just not watching bbc channels and instead only having your receiver tuned into itv etc.
BECAUSE it is entertainment, it cannot and will not ever be made a compulsory tax for every citizen. It would be narrow minded and ignorant to think it should be.
The tv license should be treated like any other subscription service. You want netflix, you pay for netflix. You want sky, you pay for it. You want a virgin media broadband connection you pay for that. These are all services that are essentially the same as the tv license, only it isn't a trip to magistrates court if you don't pay them... you have the service stopped and taken to civil court to recover the costs.
There is NO reason the tv license should be any different and to be quite honest, it's draconian enforcement is a dinosaur compared to everything else that is on offer.
The tv license doesn't just pay for the bbc shows it pays for the equipment being used to broadcast all the channels as well as various other programme licensing and running costs. As such it cannot be avoided by just not watching bbc channels and instead only having your receiver tuned into itv etc.
BECAUSE it is entertainment, it cannot and will not ever be made a compulsory tax for every citizen. It would be narrow minded and ignorant to think it should be.
The tv license should be treated like any other subscription service. You want netflix, you pay for netflix. You want sky, you pay for it. You want a virgin media broadband connection you pay for that. These are all services that are essentially the same as the tv license, only it isn't a trip to magistrates court if you don't pay them... you have the service stopped and taken to civil court to recover the costs.
There is NO reason the tv license should be any different and to be quite honest, it's draconian enforcement is a dinosaur compared to everything else that is on offer.
Oh god this is just insane logic. The tax does not go to make such channels or broadcasts.
And yes there is a very good reason it is treated differently. It is deemed to be beneficial to the uk, and as such is funded in a different way. So it is not constrained to normal funding and the restrictions that come with normal funding.
And no the other services are in no way essentially the same, none of them have a charter that force them to make certain programs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
BBC1 and 2 complete crap the entire week from 6 am to 8 pm the same programes, I havent watched BBC channels almost 7 years maybe longer.
i remember bbc2 from 5 30 to 7 30 they used to put series like star trek etc... black and white series like flash etc... now its complete cheap crap TV. I dont even have an antenna on my TV anymore, just internet.
i remember bbc2 from 5 30 to 7 30 they used to put series like star trek etc... black and white series like flash etc... now its complete cheap crap TV. I dont even have an antenna on my TV anymore, just internet.
Last edited:
This may be slightly shocking, but royalties are legally required.
The fact that GG is a convicted paedophile doesn't overule the laws for copyright, although I suspect that the BBC (like most organisations) has probably tried to reduce the usage of his work as much as possible (unfortunately it's not always possible to easily edit out the use of a song from a show recorded 20 years ago, especially if it's part of the BGM and not just a performance of the song).
You'll probably find that ITV and even Sky are paying him royalties if you could get a FOI from them, as both have shows that used his music.
[edit]
Reading the link it sounds like a non story, they used part of a track in a documentary about the music of a specific era (in which like it or not he was a big name and influence), thus a royalty was due, and it may even be the (reading the comments) that GG no longer owns the rights for his music, thus the royalty payment wouldn't even be going to him.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 1,531
I use virgin for my TV so I would've thought most if not all the equipment for giving me the channels is on hardware paid for by virginmedia not the TV license.
But it isn't a BBC tax, it is a TV License. Why should what the BBC does or does not have to make come into us having a TV license that is required for ANY tv.
It's pretty unreasonable to tax an entire service based on the needs of one small segment of it.
Last edited:
I dont think anyone will deny its probably morally unethical but this is very minor bickering and people do a lot worse than watch something at the wrong time that falls foul of the BBC. What about thier wasteful money and is chasing someone for something they do not have or cannot afford unethical?
A few examples would be:
You need it for BT Sport which is them trying to shaft me as i am entitled for BTSport through my contract length with Infinity which told me i was entitled to use the online APP to view livesport on my laptop or TV and no one informed me about TV fee's. BT paid out £1 billion pounds for the rights to stream those games to UEFA so they could give it to Infinity customers so why do i need to pay twice. And BT shaft me twice for line rental on that Infinity 80MB product even though i have no phone installed and already pay for my Infinity anyways? Why am i paying £140 a year on top of my £26pm to BT? Im being doubled charged on items out of corporate greed.
Everyone wants some of that pie and if you ask me it should be based on per viewing or hours per week and charged at the end of the year.
A few examples would be:
You need it for BT Sport which is them trying to shaft me as i am entitled for BTSport through my contract length with Infinity which told me i was entitled to use the online APP to view livesport on my laptop or TV and no one informed me about TV fee's. BT paid out £1 billion pounds for the rights to stream those games to UEFA so they could give it to Infinity customers so why do i need to pay twice. And BT shaft me twice for line rental on that Infinity 80MB product even though i have no phone installed and already pay for my Infinity anyways? Why am i paying £140 a year on top of my £26pm to BT? Im being doubled charged on items out of corporate greed.
Everyone wants some of that pie and if you ask me it should be based on per viewing or hours per week and charged at the end of the year.
Last edited:
Yes they do, when itv was launched the government required that it fulfilled a similar obligation to the bbc, mandating a certain level of local news coverage, arts and religious programming, in return for the right to broadcast.
Same goes for channel 4 when that was brought out and channel five when it started in 97.
At the end of the day, the tv service is a luxury. It's entertainment and entirely non-essential. To think that it should be paid by everybody in the same way as the NHS is staggeringly moronic and the fact that not paying a tv license can bring a greater penalty than being caught speeding without insurance is an utter joke. Turning it to a civil matter was inevitable.
During the transition from O2 broadband to Sky, I had to decline a sky fibre package because they insisted I had a TV package thrown in, and I didn't want to be liable for a TV licence, Sky fibre without a TV bundle is actually more expensive, and made it not worth the money.
I had to cancel my internet and land line contract and go elsewhere in the end, it's ridiculous.
Why didn't you just unplug the sky tv box if it was cheaper to have it?
In no way did it have a similar mandate to BBC. Yes its regulated but not in the same way as the BBC charter, not even close.
Because I wouldn't fancy arguing that I don't need a licence in court, if it's clear I am paying for a package with inclusive TV which would require a TV licence by default.
I put that same question to the O2/sky rep on the phone and they couldn't give a straight answer. They also wouldn't budge on the price of the non-TV FTTC internet/landine only package.
In the end I went for plusnet line rental and their 80Meg FTTC, which was a bit more expensive but its unlimited internets, and 80meg as opposed to the capped 40meg sky were offering.
In no way did it have a similar mandate to BBC. Yes its regulated but not in the same way as the BBC charter, not even close.
For one thing ITV has managed to basically drop most of the PSB requirements it originally had over the years claiming they are too expensive, or that it put them at a competitive disadvantage (the same but to a greater extent has blighted radio
), and I think C5 always had a much lighter PSB commitment.IIRC ITV's regulations take into account that it's commercially funded and has to be able to make a profit, thus it's PSB requirements are fairly low, and it can pretty much do whatever it wants outside of that and general broadcast law in the UK.
The BBC has to actively gain approval from governmental bodies and a semi independent body (the BBC trust) to do a lot of things, and can be actively instructed to cut back on certain activities if the commercial sector objects.
Which has led to the scaling back of things like the BBC's educational resources online because the commercial sector claimed the existence of the BBC's content was hampering their ability to compete, however when the BBC scaled back/shut down those bits none of the commercial companies that complained offered anything to replace most of it, and the likes of schools ended up losing a very helpful, cheap/free resource.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I think a lot of people were addicted to tv and a lot still are. But i think TV has peaked in its traditional form and the license model is going to be force to change at some point. They can't just keep blowing the license money on whatever they want. Well they can but i don't think that was the intended purpose of the bbc at its inception.