TV Licence Super Thread

[Tuppy_Glossop]

So really nothing on the internet is broadcast

Nothing on TCP/IP is broadcast. Connectionless protocols, like UDP, are perfect for internet broadcast. UDP used to be used to broadcast time packets. Devices could use them or ignore them, just like a broadcast TV signal.

 

[Werewolf]

We already have ads on most UK channels and it's not that bad.

Spreading the advertising pot around more would result in a lot more adverts and lower quality TV, if not flat out killing off a number of the smaller channels.

It would also pretty much kill off much of the more niche content, certainly the serious documentaries and things about less popular subjects would either come to an end, or be sexed up (anyone who remembers what Discovery was originally like compared to what it is now will have an idea of what purely commercial concerns do to documentaries).

From memory when there was a consultation on how the BBC should be funded in the future not one of the commercial broadcasters thought the idea of an advertising funded BBC was a good idea (it would hurt their profits a lot, and they have a bit of a habit of relying in the BBC to do the stuff that is needed but doesn't make money, such as training staff).

 

[dowie]

Stretching it to twitch streamers and other content creators would really pee a lot of people off. A lot of those guys are funded by donations already and it would seem very wrong for a corporation to cash in off the back of the hard work of individuals.

it would indeed but the existence of them does make me wonder what will happen going forwards as there does seem to be a grey area concerning youtube/twitch etc.. that I'd love someone to explain

I mean BTSport (AFAIK) has some football matches exclusively(champions league IIRC), they're not broadcast simultaneously on conventional 'TV' and BTSport is an online service - seemingly BT Sport requires a TV license

Netflix currently just offers on demand content and so doesn't require a TV license - but if Netflix successfully bid for premier league football and could exclusively show that then I'd presume the same situation as with BT Sport would occur

I'm not seeing how that would be any different in principle to me setting up 'dowieTV' on twitch/youtube and 'broadcasting' live from the South London tiddlywinks championship/[insert random competitive event]

aside from scale what is the difference/distinction between doing that and doing what Netflix could in theory do or what BTSport already does?

but then me 'broadcasting' on twitch, just because I've named my channel '[something]TV' shouldn't be any different to any other live 'broadcast' on twitch...

I'd be very interested in where the line actually gets crossed and I wonder if perhaps it is something that still needs to be tested in court?

 

[Fishbait]

I always thought the TV license was a strange thing to exist, it's a way of funding the state and its activities, so why not just have it done through the tax we normally pay?

Downside though, is that then everyone would be paying this tax regardless of whether they use tv or not.
No one should have to pay this licence, but no one at all should ever have to pay for something they've no intention of using.

 

[KNiVES]

Downside though, is that then everyone would be paying this tax regardless of whether they use tv or not.
No one should have to pay this licence, but no one at all should ever have to pay for something they've no intention of using.

Well yes but I am perfectly ok with that. I've never broken my leg, but I'm happy that my taxes aid the recovery of somebody who has. If we start trying to pinpoint what taxes should occur and where exactly it will go, you will have hyper-capitalist nightmares like the US where because only a few people pay certain taxes, it becomes prohibitively expensive for those who find themselves needing or using such services.

I've probably opened a can of worms here

 

[Fishbait]

Well yes but I am perfectly ok with that. I've never broken my leg, but I'm happy that my taxes aid the recovery of somebody who has. If we start trying to pinpoint what taxes should occur and where exactly it will go, you will have hyper-capitalist nightmares like the US where because only a few people pay certain taxes, it becomes prohibitively expensive for those who find themselves needing or using such services.

I've probably opened a can of worms here

Slight difference though, is that you have a possibility of breaking a leg, so the NHS will be there waiting for you. Well, until they sell it off that is hehe
No one needs a tv. Months, years or whatever down the road, I'll not want one, but if I did, I could then decide to pay what was required as & when.
Having said that, not had one since the '90s & even that was only for my Amiga

P.S. Don't break a leg. Been there, done that, it's a hassle

P.P.S. Mmm, Worms. Gets me off the hook?

 

[KNiVES]

Ha, I've only just realized your username!

 

[Fishbait]

Ha, I've only just realized your username!

/snickers

 

[pooley]

lolz the thread that keeps on giving xD

 

[Kenai]

it would indeed but the existence of them does make me wonder what will happen going forwards as there does seem to be a grey area concerning youtube/twitch etc.. that I'd love someone to explain

I mean BTSport (AFAIK) has some football matches exclusively(champions league IIRC), they're not broadcast simultaneously on conventional 'TV' and BTSport is an online service - seemingly BT Sport requires a TV license

Netflix currently just offers on demand content and so doesn't require a TV license - but if Netflix successfully bid for premier league football and could exclusively show that then I'd presume the same situation as with BT Sport would occur

I'm not seeing how that would be any different in principle to me setting up 'dowieTV' on twitch/youtube and 'broadcasting' live from the South London tiddlywinks championship/[insert random competitive event]

aside from scale what is the difference/distinction between doing that and doing what Netflix could in theory do or what BTSport already does?

but then me 'broadcasting' on twitch, just because I've named my channel '[something]TV' shouldn't be any different to any other live 'broadcast' on twitch...

I'd be very interested in where the line actually gets crossed and I wonder if perhaps it is something that still needs to be tested in court?

BT sport is conventional TV, that you can add to your Virgin, Sky, BT TV etc. that happens to stream online simultaneously. They don't exclusively show anything live online that isn't on one of their TV channels.

 

[dowie]

BT sport is conventional TV, that you can add to your Virgin, Sky, BT TV etc. that happens to stream online simultaneously. They don't exclusively show anything live online that isn't on one of their TV channels.

AFAIK that isn't true re: the champions league

regardless that isn't important for this purpose I'm referring to content not broadcast on conventional TV - the conventional TV aspect isn't in question here... watching say an Sky program live via BT or NowTV or via some illegal stream on youtube/twitch/facebook would clearly require a TV licence, that isn't what I'm asking about

what I'm asking about is where the line is drawn in the less clear cut examples, where the content isn't broadcast in the conventional sense on TV but is online only - at what point then is online only TV different to someone streaming on youtube/twitch/facebook?

 

[Kenai]

that isn't true AFAIK re: the champions league

regardless for this purpose I'm referring to content not broadcast on conventional TV - the conventional TV aspect isn't in question here... watching say an Sky program live via BT or NowTV or via some illegal stream on youtube/twitch/facebook would clearly require a TV licence

what I'm asking about is where the line is drawn in the less clear cut examples, where the content isn't broadcast in the conventional sense on TV but is online only - at what point then is online only TV different to someone streaming on youtube/twitch/facebook?

Champions league games are all on TV, that's how I watch them. Pretty sure they're not showing any others online that aren't on the TV channels.

They've created confusion in an effort to define BBC Three as a TV channel even though they moved it online only.

Not sure exactly how that's defined distinctly from others but I suspect it's tied into being scheduled, having defined operating hours and being subject to ofcom oversight.

 

[dowie]

Not sure exactly how that's defined distinctly from others but I suspect it's tied into being scheduled, having defined operating hours and being subject to ofcom oversight.

yeah that is the bit that is mentioned earlier by the other poster, albeit without any citation, scheduling is a bit open to definition - nothing to stop a twitch channel from a putting forth a schedule

as for ofcom oversight - that just leaves open the same question... essentially I'm asking "when is something classed as X?" and that answer is basically "when it is classed as Y" - the question still remains then - in this case, when then does ofcom oversight apply to online only live streams? (I'm a bit skeptical that this is the criteria as ofcom covers on demand content too which isn't subject to licensing but also ofcom doesn't cover foreign content which ostensibly could be subject to licensing)

 

[Glaucus]

Dowie just having an EPG does not make it a TV program, the biggest part that makes it a TV program is being shown on the conventional channels, and when you say no citation. You mean you wanted me to link you to the relevent parts of the act, the act was linked all off it. Go read it if you want to learn, I don't know where it is but it will be in there somewhere.
It is not a grey area, it does not need testing in court. A twitch game stream fails to qualify as a TV program and always will (unless they change the law)

 

[Nasher]

Spreading the advertising pot around more would result in a lot more adverts and lower quality TV, if not flat out killing off a number of the smaller channels.

It would also pretty much kill off much of the more niche content, certainly the serious documentaries and things about less popular subjects would either come to an end, or be sexed up (anyone who remembers what Discovery was originally like compared to what it is now will have an idea of what purely commercial concerns do to documentaries).

From memory when there was a consultation on how the BBC should be funded in the future not one of the commercial broadcasters thought the idea of an advertising funded BBC was a good idea (it would hurt their profits a lot, and they have a bit of a habit of relying in the BBC to do the stuff that is needed but doesn't make money, such as training staff).

Then it should move to a subscription service with a decoder. They won't though, because they know they would loose a massive amount of customers when they can't bully old ladies in to paying up on the doorstep.

 

[dowie]

Dowie just having an EPG does not make it a TV program, the biggest part that makes it a TV program is being shown on the conventional channels, and when you say no citation. You mean you wanted me to link you to the relevent parts of the act, the act was linked all off it. Go read it if you want to learn, I don't know where it is but it will be in there somewhere.
It is not a grey area, it does not need testing in court. A twitch game stream fails to qualify as a TV program and always will (unless they change the law)

no I just wanted an explanation from someone who knows - again being shown on conventional TV channels is obvious - I'm not asking about that, I'm asking about online TV - when does an online broadcast (not shown on conventional TV) count as 'TV', you don't appear to know yourself else you've be able to explain it and answer the questions posed, instead you seem to just make an assumption that it is accurately defined somewhere but you're unable to cite anything.

Why does a twitch game fail to qualify? Where is the line drawn? You seem to be confident that you're correct without actually being able to explain why?

 

[Glaucus]

no I just wanted an explanation form someone who knows - again being shown on conventional channels is obvious - I'm not asking about that, I'm asking about online TV - when does an online broadcast count as TV, you don't appear to know yourself else you've be able to explain it and answer the questions posed, instead you seem to just make an assumption that it is accurately defined somewhere but you're unable to cite anything

Only when it's also being shown in conventional TV. You seem to be missing this large point. Otherwise it is not a TV programme it is just an online broadcast not covered by TV license.

 

[dowie]

Only when it's also being shown in conventional TV. You seem to be missing this large point. Otherwise it is not a TV programme it is just an online broadcast not covered by TV license.

why does the TV license website contradict what you've just posted:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/Live-TV-and-how-you-watch-it

Do I need a TV Licence to watch live TV programmes on an online-only TV channel?

Yes. Online-only TV channels still count as live TV, so you need a TV Licence if you’re watching or recording their programmes.

 

[Glaucus]

It doesnt at all. The TV license website makes it hard to understand but does not lie.
You watch BBC online or say national geographic and that is still a TV channel.
There is only one online TV channel I know and that's BBC 3 which is now covered as you need a TV license for BBC iplayer.

 

[dowie]

It doesnt at all. The TV license website makes it hard to understand but does not lie.
You watch BBC online or say national geographic and that is still a TV channel.
There is only one online TV channel I know and that's BBC 3 which is now covered as you need a TV license for BBC iplayer.

So I could watch live football on BT Sport without a TV license? (so long as it is a match they have exclusive rights to)