Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 960
- Location
- Planet Earth
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 2,005
- Location
- Warwickshire
Do they mean devices ' via iPlayer' though (so simple single source paywall implementation)?
Or does an 8 year old BBC produced Louis Theroux documentary on youtube\dailymotion fall under this?
If so this is a massive change in legislation & I wonder how it got through so quickly.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
What I'm amazed by is the fact you need a tv license even if you don't watch BBC or use iPlayer at all.
You need it to watch any live tv or record any live tv or use iPlayer.
So I need to pay Sky £XX a month, then I need a license to watch the content I'm paying for.
I would quite gladly allow Sky to block all BBC content from my sub if it meant I didn't need this TV license but that isn't the case I still need one.
It's crazy they are allowed to do this, it should be for BBC related stuff only not blanket coverage of all tv.
Let's say I only stream live tv from america, I still need to fund the BBC because of this crazy license or I subscribe to a foreign satellite sub I still need to fund the BBC.
They should privatise the BBC and get rid of the TV license it's a farce.
You need it to watch any live tv or record any live tv or use iPlayer.
So I need to pay Sky £XX a month, then I need a license to watch the content I'm paying for.
I would quite gladly allow Sky to block all BBC content from my sub if it meant I didn't need this TV license but that isn't the case I still need one.
It's crazy they are allowed to do this, it should be for BBC related stuff only not blanket coverage of all tv.
Let's say I only stream live tv from america, I still need to fund the BBC because of this crazy license or I subscribe to a foreign satellite sub I still need to fund the BBC.
They should privatise the BBC and get rid of the TV license it's a farce.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
I think you need it to view / access any BBC media regardless of it's age.
Most of the stuff on YouTube and DailyMotion is usually copyright infringement. It's not been legally uploaded so I imagine streaming it with a TV license could be deemed illegal.
To me that specifically says this new change just applies to watching BBC content via IPlayer itself.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/bbc-iplayer-and-the-tv-licence
EDIT: Yup, it's right there on their own website.
Last edited:
Sorry, OT again
It amazes me when people think the licence fee is bad value but a Sky subscription is good value.
The cheapest Sky TV package is £20 a month. So £240 for a year vs. £145.50.
Looking at the list of channels, for that money you get the Sky channels (Atlantic, 1, 2, News, Arts, Living) and not a great deal else (Real Lives, Comedy Central, Syfy, Fox, MTV, Gold...).
Seems like bad value to me and I'm a huge Game of Thrones fan!
What would you watch if they took all the freeview channels out? Do you only watch Sky channels, movies, and sports?
It amazes me when people think the licence fee is bad value but a Sky subscription is good value.
The cheapest Sky TV package is £20 a month. So £240 for a year vs. £145.50.
Looking at the list of channels, for that money you get the Sky channels (Atlantic, 1, 2, News, Arts, Living) and not a great deal else (Real Lives, Comedy Central, Syfy, Fox, MTV, Gold...).
Seems like bad value to me and I'm a huge Game of Thrones fan!
What would you watch if they took all the freeview channels out? Do you only watch Sky channels, movies, and sports?
Last edited:
Don
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 8,991
- Location
- Kent
Although in principle I do agree with you, it would be much harder to police as you can bet a lot of "freeloaders" out there would say "I don't watch the BBC, I just watch other channels." Yet they watch the BBC anyway. A block might work, but it's not in the government's interests to push for that, so they won't.
As a side note, Channel 4 is also part-funded by the TV license (I believe), not that there is a lot on there anyway these days...
To be honest I am glad that those who just watch BBC iPlayer will now have to pay as well. It always annoyed me how I was paying for their content.
I do hope that they do not start extending it to Netflix\Amazon Prime\NOWTV etc however, though it may only be a short period of time before they do.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
What an awful idea.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 130
When?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I cancelled my cable tv, telephone line and tv license. Saving myself about £40 a month for services I don't use. My 200mb broadband and netflix/amazon subscriptions obviously cost a chunk of change, but I was paying for them anyway. So yeah, I feel like this was a good move on my part.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 960
- Location
- Planet Earth
Surely you would rather pay the BBC than the pernicious Murdoch tax? Why anyone pays money to Sky is totally beyond me. Programmes for the brain dead basically.
isn't it more bout choice and not being forced to pay the fee that is effectively a tax, you may not like sky or Murdoch but many don't have a problem with him or them.
The way the fee is enforced is another major problem for me, the people that enforce on behalf of the bbc often border on criminal, lying, bulling and harassing people that may or may not be watching tv without a licence.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 960
- Location
- Planet Earth
And you don't think Murdoch has bullied lied and manipulated the British people for decades through his abysmal news rags? It's mainly through him that we are now coming out of the EU and goodness only knows how many jobs that is going to cost honest hard working people.
He'll be able to claim again 'it wer the sun what dun it'. He simply sneers at us.
yes sure buts that's a separate issue, at least with him and his products you have a choice, I myself wouldn't give him a penny.
It's worth noting that the BBC will get very good rates on most hotel bookings as they'll be doing it in bulk and at business rates (so might be paying far less than the headline rate).
So a "fancy" hotel might actually have been cheaper than other options, especially if they were booking for cast and crew*.
IIRC the BBC typically pays it's staff well under the commercial rates, with the disparity increasing as you go up the ladder.
So for a low level staffer the rate might be the same/slightly lower than say ITV or Sky, but by the time you get to the senior posts you might be getting paid a fraction of it (IIRC the top 10 or 20 BBC staff between them get paid less than ITV's top guy, less than the Daily Mail editor, and you'd probably need the top 50 staff to reach the same salary as the head of Sky).
They are also far more stringent on expenses than other broadcasters, IIRC they tend to really tight on a lot of things.
It may have been different in decades gone by, but certainly the last 10 years or so at least they've been really tight fisted.
*The mail made a big thing about one such hotel where the BBC had booked beds at a "£150 a night hotel", it turned out that they'd booked rooms at a B&B at the non peak bulk advance rate of about £40 or £50 a night as it was the nearest suitable place to where they were filming (saving on travel costs and meaning more time could be spent filming).
Why? I don't have Sky or Virgin installed here and no TV aerial. If I watch anything on BBC it is catchup. I actually haven't watched anything on iPlayer in weeks anyway.
Because most people simply are lying. They do watch live TV even if it is infrequently.