BBC license fee proposals...
- Thread starter /\ndy
- Start date
Strong argument.
Oh, btw, you don't need a license for your 'television set'...
It was also be incredibly easy to enforce users to pay for iplayer, no matter how they're accessing it.
Suspended
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
And you don't pay for these?
Complain to your MP then as it is a Govt decision.
In your opinion.
The fact that you don't get the mind numbing commercial advertising breaking up the programs is worth the Govt fee. BBC made ~£5bn last year, of which only £3.5Bn was from the Govt so it does not totally rely on the Govt.
Last edited:
I really don't know what wrong with some of you
If you don't watch it then opt out of the license if you don't need it - don't moan cause you are using iplayer without paying and they are closing that loophole
they only collect details of who bought a TV because 99.99% of those who do use it to (surprise) watch TV and therefore need a license- the rest need to opt out.
Just because you don't watch anything on the BBC doesn't mean the majority of the population feels the same.
If you don't watch it then opt out of the license if you don't need it - don't moan cause you are using iplayer without paying and they are closing that loophole
they only collect details of who bought a TV because 99.99% of those who do use it to (surprise) watch TV and therefore need a license- the rest need to opt out.
Just because you don't watch anything on the BBC doesn't mean the majority of the population feels the same.
It's pretty easy from a technical standpoint to match an IP address to a mobile account. With the right powers, enforcement could be almost completely automated.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,085
But....but....we give Sky £80 a month and need the license to watch that!
And now allow me to argue that the BBC has political motives as we pour money in to Rupert "interfering right wing Aussie" Murdochs coffers.
If that is the case then what is wrong with a subscription model?
You've also ignored the fact the license is required for TV in general not just the BBC yet no other broadcaster gets a share of the license revenue.
Just use a friend/family members? That's pretty much what's going to happen.
I suspect there will be something slightly more sophisticated than 'enter your licence number' to control that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,606
- Location
- La France
Until you figure in IP recycling by the mobile network operators or PAYG "burners".
I don't tell them because I don't want them to enter my property. They sent a guy around one time and I just said I don't watch TV but sorry you can't enter and he moved on. Its far less hassle to ignore them than prove I don't watch TV.
Like I said earlier though, if they come up with a model for me to only pay for catchup TV, I wouldn't avoid paying.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,085
Im sure they will limit the amount of devices you can use it on. Four seems fair.
Mooching off friends and family rather than paying 40p a day though. Classy.
.
What is wrong with that argument? We can watch live streams on YouTube or Facebook without a license, we can watch Netflix or amazon prime without one yet if you want to watch non BBC content via a satellite feed rather than the internet then you need to give money to the BBC? In fact we've even got the dubious area where BT TV delivered over the internet requires a license. I mean the line is completely blurred as to what counts as TV now live feeds are more common.
I personally find the BBC very arrogant. Since they gave up on F1 and didn't even bother bidding to keep MotoGP after 10 years coverage, they have nothing for me whatsoever. After axing BBC Three they decided to spend an extra 30 million on drama, instead of offering diversity by trying to keep the above, they go and spend all that money on something they already have way too much of and something which I absolutely do not watch. And they claim they have something for everyone.
What really needles me is the fact that if you stream live video from a country far far away on your own internet, using your own electric and equipment, they demand a TV licence from you because it's 'live'.
Jay
What really needles me is the fact that if you stream live video from a country far far away on your own internet, using your own electric and equipment, they demand a TV licence from you because it's 'live'.
Jay
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,701
- Location
- Cheshire
In this example, the bread is equivalent to your television content/programming (which the licence pays for) and you have to pay for that.
But I'm sure you can't watch live streams via anywhere without a licence because it's live, correct me if I am wrong of course.
Jay
I really can't complain about anything they've brought in. Seems pretty sensible throughout *which given the government came up with it, is bloody surprising!*
For me, the license fee is worth it just for the amount of Radio4 and 4Extra I listen to.
For me, the license fee is worth it just for the amount of Radio4 and 4Extra I listen to.
In this example, the bread is equivalent to your television content/programming (which the licence pays for) and you have to pay for that.
But what if you don't like bread, havn't toasted bread in ages and only want to toast some sweet sweet poptarts? And what if you're willing to not have access to bread?
Well it doesn't seem to be very clear what is defined as TV
If I open up Facebook and the newsfeed now shows live streams as I scroll past do they count as a TV broadcast? What about a webcam or Skype or the gamers who stream their game play to thousands?
Seems like a grey area, what is the distinction between that and live 'TV' delivered over the internet?