UK TV Licence law, facts without BS, remember deny ignorance?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

the time i used to put into tv now goes on online poker.....i just replaced 1 bad habit with another

Lol I lost some money playing online poker a few months ago and decided that I would stick to free poker. If you're looking for a good online poker website where you can play for free with other people try replaypoker.com. It's good because they keep track of your playing statistics and your top hands. I've found it's a good way to practice but you need to keep in mind that people play much more aggressively and unpredictably when they're using free chips. Anyhow we better get back on topic now.

What I find really strange is that even if you get Sky or Virgin (like cable or satellite TV) you STILL are expected to pay the damn TV license fee...... Shouldn't that be taken care of by the cable/satellite operator and simply wrapped up in your monthly bill ????

Also for non Brits, you should be aware that all BBC programming (4 or 5 channels) is provided without commercials, so really, THAT's what the TV license fee is all about. Sitting here paying over $100/month for regular TV+average internet, 145 quid a year doesn't sound so terrible really to have some truly quality-produced shows completely free of ads.

A lot of you guys in the UK should try on life in the the US for a few years and then realize how good you actually have it. I've spent lots of time on both sides and my wife is British so we know the ups and downs of both sides. Fuel prices in Britian are the most difficult for me, but raw food prices and cost of living are much better in most of the UK than here in FL

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
What I find really strange is that even if you get Sky or Virgin (like cable or satellite TV) you STILL are expected to pay the damn TV license fee...... Shouldn't that be taken care of by the cable/satellite operator and simply wrapped up in your monthly bill ????

Also for non Brits, you should be aware that all BBC programming (4 or 5 channels) is provided without commercials, so really, THAT's what the TV license fee is all about. Sitting here paying over $100/month for regular TV+average internet, 145 quid a year doesn't sound so terrible really to have some truly quality-produced shows completely free of ads.

A lot of you guys in the UK should try on life in the the US for a few years and then realize how good you actually have it. I've spent lots of time on both sides and my wife is British so we know the ups and downs of both sides. Fuel prices in Britian are the most difficult for me, but raw food prices and cost of living are much better in most of the UK than here in FL

quality is a matter of opinion mate lol are you over here often? I'm surprised you say that about cost of living thought it would be cheaper state side.

Nothing is free. So what you are is a free loader sponging off the honest folk of the world. Your types won't see it this way but your lot never do! You are a shameful disgrace to your country sir!

a reply to: 8675309jenny

"Shouldn't that be taken care of by the cable/satellite operator and simply wrapped up in your monthly bill ????"

Absolutely not im afraid and the moment Sky, Virgin, BT or and other provider of subscription based entertainment try to implement such a heinous underhanded scheme is the day they will lose rather a significant proportion of there UK customers.

Simple fact you don't need subscription TV to watch any program provided by said services when you are able to download and watch at your own leisure via broadband.

We pay for these services because of the convenience they offer nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to implement an additional licence cost into their already overpriced service charges wont work out to well for them from a financial perspective, hence there reluctance to get into bed with the BBC.

a reply to: andy06shake

In the US, cable was originally sold as advertising free. That didn't last long. Also lots of taxes and fees are rolled in at the subscription level. We just don't see it.

Excellent Saturday night, and mild hangover, so thanks for all the interesting replies here in my absence.
I'll just respond to folks who have named me personally to save rambling on as I sometimes do...

a reply to: Kandinsky
I totally agree about BBC radio, 5Live, 6Music being favourites personally, but TV programmes I watch on catchup/internet so don't require a licence. Right now the 6 Nations is on 'normal TV' and rugby is my sport of choice, but I always watch live matches at the pub for the atmosphere. I was devastated when England turned Wales over on Friday night...the only Welsh bloke in an English pub, I was proper ripped but hey was still a laugh.
Same with football, I watch in whichever pub is showing a Swansea game.

Regarding adverts though, if I'm round a mates house watching something on commercial TV we pause it on the Sky box first, go for a smoke, then fast forward every advert break. I thought most people did that these days.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
I'm only guessing but when the licence fee started the only broadcaster was the BBC so that probably made sense as a way to fund it. Once commercial stations came on the scene perhaps the government insisted the licence was required 'for all live broadcasts' because people would stop paying it if they didn't watch the BBC.
The only way to be exempt from paying it is like myself, not using any device to watch live broadcast transmissions, which was annoying in pre-internet days, but not an issue now with broadband so I don't pay it.

The only inconvenience is waiting a day or two for a programme to be available online, but that's cool as I can watch it when I like then with no legal requirement for a licence.

And this...

originally posted by: biggilo
Nothing is free. So what you are is a free loader sponging off the honest folk of the world. Your types won't see it this way but your lot never do! You are a shameful disgrace to your country sir!

Lol, as you haven't directed your reply to anyone in particular I shall assume you refer to the OP, me.
Have you not even read my opening post properly? The law is clear, it is a criminal offence to USE a device to receive programmes 'as they are shown' on TV. I don't, so I am not required to purchase a TV licence. Now you may be one of those who thinks that OWNING a device capable of receiving TV requires a licence, but you would be incorrect in your opinion.
All BBC national and local radio stations are free of the licence, as is the rather excellent BBC.co.uk website. This is all funded by the people who pay for a licence to receive broadcast TV so take your whinging up with the government and start bleating that people who don't watch TV should have to pay for the free services.
Right now radio, streamed 'non-live' TV programmes, and the entire BBC website is free for people who do not watch live broadcast TV, I am one of those people.
Half of the world could be called freeloaders using your logic as many BBC services are available free (and free of adverts) online.
You gonna start crying that someone in Australia is using the bbc website now because the TV licence payers fund it?
As I said bleat to the government if you want change, not ATS.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

I can understand the frustration you must feel regarding hidden fees and taxes associated with your monthly subscription. But please realise we also experience advertisements regarding our subscription based services. The licence fee is for BBC programming alone, nothing else. So why should there extortion schemes extend towards our subscription based services when ultimately they have little or no connection to the BBC?

Essentially what im asking you is why should the BBC get a slice of the subscription services pie that they did not bake in the first place?

originally posted by: andy06shake
why should the BBC get a slice of the subscription services pie that they did not bake in the first place?

I agree with you there, but the only benefit I can see of a subscription service like Sky/Virgin/BT is the instant live broadcast option. I watch the same things as my mates but a day or week or so later as a streamed recording, free.
£20 per month broadband is all I pay out, I don't see the point of any subscription service so I don't have one, and don't require a licence.

a reply to: grainofsand

I got rid of my Virgin based TV package as soon as i decided to migrate to Sky Broadband Unlimited about 4 years ago based on the fact that Sky do not implement any fair usage policy and also because i prefer to download and watch what ever i wish at my own convenience. No need for additional Sky TV packages ether. I don't need a licence to watch TV any more than i need one to breathe air, nor does anyone else i imagine.

a reply to: andy06shake
A very wise move sir, that would also make your good self exempt from the TV licence as well.
...of course this is only while you continue to refrain from watching programmes live as broadcast for TV, as I trust you do not.

I don't see how the BBC can justify charging someone for watching live television when they don't necessarily watch BBC channels. I mean it's charging people because they are making a presumption. If they want money for watching their (let's face it) piss poor channels it should be a subscription service.

a reply to: grainofsand

Of course not my good Man that would be illegal i imagine. One would never wish to breach one of their overtly totalitarian laws.

I can't imagine any of our good law abiding citizens who would commit such an act of depravity as to intentionally watch TV against the express permission of the BBC. Who would do such a thing? LoL

lol I informed son in law 3 years ago that he didn't require a license as his tv was stand alone for video, games and dvd.
the numpty still paid out of panic when the red print investigation notice arrived.
one now has the option of declaring online that a license is not required.
this document once declared will be added into records.

what I speculate from here on is this.

parliament recently threw out a bill to decriminalise the offence of not possessing a license yet in breach of law by viewing 'as broadcasted' material.

parliament recently discussed moves to identify all ip's of all devices to individuals in the name of security etc...

mass data collection will allow license warriors to peruse these data banks with the intention of finding individuals who have breached the declaration by watching 'as broadcast' media on the bus, in the pub, you name the place. then the fine will be larger than the initial fee.

it will take only one occasion of watching 'as broadcast' for the warriors to implement this taxation scheme/stream.
f.

a reply to: sg1642
It may well become subscription/adverts/direct taxation in time, because with internet providing everything 'non-live' and available just from a broadband subscription, more people will do as I do and just not pay it, because I don't have to.
Remember 'watching TV as broadcast' requires a licence. If someone watches say 'Eastenders' only on catch-up then they don't need a licence. But if someone is so desperate to watch it at exactly 8pm in the evening (or whenever it is on, I don't watch the crap) they require a licence.
The more people who don't care about watching 'while it is broadcast' then the more people who don't require a licence...the BBC is well aware of this so change will happen.

It may even become a minor civil matter soon and this whole thread will be a moot point then, although it could make getting non-payers easier as the standard of evidence in a civil court is "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt" that's just my suspicious mind though...
MPs back moves to decriminalise TV licence fee non-payment

a reply to: fakedirt
That's a really interesting thought regarding the data retention and chasing people who watch online. It wouldn't surprise me but I'd imagine a much cheaper system of certain content only available online after logging in with a licence number or something like that?

a reply to: fakedirt

People will simply hide behind VPNs should such overtly totalitarian measures become commonplace.

Where there is a will there is a way, end of the day individuals are far smarter and creative than our Ober government ever will be, let battle commence.

I suspect it is only a matter of time. no government organisation will tolerate a significant dip of income generation. the framework just requires the ip/individual connection via the proposed statutory instrument.
f.
a reply to: grainofsand

a reply to: fakedirt

What it comes down to regarding that aspect is simply cost. There is no way in hell the licence fees generated would ever out-way the cost of implementing and continuing to implement such measures.

I agree the savvy tech peeps will vpn but the masses are a different animal. an increase of vpn activity will also be acted upon to counter the move I suspect. time and pressure.
f.
a reply to: andy06shake