It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The internet licence fee: Viewers who watch TV on computer could be charged from next year, hints mi

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by coffeesniffer
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


You say that they can't restrict who is watching and people can simply say they dont watch BBC, well with PC's they can easily see who is and who is not viewing, they can restrict access and force subscription via the internet. There is no need to force all with PC's into paying for BBC.



Again.. Fairness principle. You can not tax everyone who owns a TV regardless of their watching BBC and then go on taxing PC users (which is, after all, just a different device that can receive their broadcast, technically) on a pay per-view-basis. This is why they changed the rule. Fairness principle. Everyone who is forced to pay is forced under the same conditions, the rest would be unfair. If you'd made the TV fee contingent on actually watching the BBC too then nothing would speak against a pay per view system for all - but then there would be no more BBC.




They could have easily forced PC users to subscribe or accept terms of service for their web products and thus charge them. I would like someone to justify a blanket charge for all internet users of the UK into paying for this. The technology is there for freedom but the desire is not!


yes, as I said - it's basically the fairness principle. If you force someone to pay for a service then you must force everyone under the same conditions or it gets pretty unfair and people will just flock to the mode that is the best bargain to them (in this case, before the law changed, this would have meant throwing out the TV's and not paying the fees)....

That's why I said. You can't say this is unfair. It was unfair before and now it got fairer.
If you're against this kind of system then repeal the whole fee business, but don't scold this update since it is perfectly legitimate and fair. What's unfair is the whole system, not the update they just made. The update increases the fairness of an unfair system.
So attack the system and not this update :-)

[edit on 26-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I cannot accept it is fair or fairer to include other devices. As you said the TV as a recieving device could not have been managed by the state and they had to make a blanket rule to cover everyone with a device capable of receiving the broadcasts otherwise the BBC would not have been able to recover enough money to function. The BBC has by its own actions placed its media onto the internet and thus should have locked it down to only those that have a license to view it, now i know you will say why should they but if fairness had anything to do with it they would have.

I have used the internet since the mid 90's which was many years before the BBC decided to push its content on there. They restrict some of there content from IP ranges outside the UK so why couldnt they have done the same with UK residents? The entire system was unfair and became unfairer!

If I could change it then I would and the only way I can see that I would be able to continue as I am would be to do the following, yet I bet they would still prosecute me.

1. Enable enhanced security features of IE
2. Place all BBC content into restricted Zone so that BBC content cannot be viewed.
3. Block all BBC IP address ranges on my firewall
4. Create an event log txt file showing data exchange history.

This would take a fair bit of work and would render my PC incapable of receiving BBC broadcasts, im sure they would still want my money lmao



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by coffeesniffer
 


You have a good point and i'd just like to clarify that this License will only be for those watching BBC programmes..... at the moment!!!!

It's just how they will monitor what content people watch on their computers which is puzzling me a bit....

For starters i don't want some peeping tom knowing what i'm upto whenever i'm on the Internet!!

I may want to watch some 2 girl action on the net.... will this info be sent to the peeping Tom who is watching me?

I may want to watch a Film on the net which has been provided free of charge via someone uploading a DVD copy of the Film which they bought.... do i want this peeping Tom knowing that i'm watching a Film at a particular time?

I may want to watch 'LOST' over the net... do i want this peeping Tom knowing that i'm watching LOST?

The list can continue on...

If they have some specific monitoring device which will only pick up what people are watching on BBC then fair enough because i don't watch BBC!!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by coffeesniffer
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I cannot accept it is fair or fairer to include other devices. As you said the TV as a recieving device could not have been managed by the state and they had to make a blanket rule to cover everyone with a device capable of receiving the broadcasts otherwise the BBC would not have been able to recover enough money to function.


What I'm saying is that the collection of fees is governed by a law or a decree and therefore it may not be discriminating. If you compel people to pay a blanket fee then that fee must be a blanket fee for all people who own a device to receive their broadcast, or else it isn't fair. That's the nature of laws. Only asking a fee from people who own a TV would open the road to them suing the gov..
I know this sounds silly but it is a principle of laws and fees. If you force a blanket fee on the people then it must be asked from all people who meet the conditions, not just by people who own a TV. It's all about fairness.

Now what you are saying is pretty reasonable. I'd preferr such a system and probably the majority would. It's more logical, more practical, and way more fair. But then you have to abandon the whole unfair system and not just this new update to the collection process.
But as long things are as they are is is simply fairer to collect these fees from "everyone who is able to receive the BBC's broadcast" just as the law says. Today, it makes no difference if it's a TV or a PC. Of course they could modify their sites in a way as to only allow fee payers to view - but that would be a different system (pay per view) instead of a blanket fee system.

Don't you see that that would be unfair? You cannot indiscriminatly collect fees from all TV owners regardless if the watch the BBC or not and then go on to implement a pay-per-view system for the internent. That's discriminatory since the PC user gets the better deal. Isn't that obvious?

Before the law it makes no difference if your device to receive their broadcast is a TV or a PC. A device is a device before the law. So you can't tax the deviceholders discriminatly based on what kind of device they own - or one group loses and the other wins (or; in reality, the BBC loses as all flock to the cheaper side)... It's really just about levelling, making it more fair.

I'm all for what you propose but that is a pay per view system. If you tax the PC owners on a pay per view basis then you have no other choice to tax the TV owners the same way (even if it's technically not possible) because everything else would be discriminatory.

The problem is you're looking at this with common sense. And I agree.
But the problem is legal one, and that's the perspective you should take in approaching this problem.

But no questions, I'd prefer you system. But only when it applies to all. Fairness means fair for all, not just fair for the newest technology.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


Ok, you would be surprised at just how much British TV has BBC involvement. Dave, G.O.L.D and others all use BBC programming.

Even if you don't like the BBC content, the sheer fact any TV at all is being broadcast at all is down to the BBC, although Blair broke up the BBC after the whole Kelly affair and sold off the transmitting stations to Arqiva, the BBC do take the lead when it comes to technology and content. ITV, Channel 4 etc do not have their own transmitters, although they are stakeholders in the Freeview consortium using the (old) BBC towers.

Personally, I think the license fee should be shared amongst all 5 terrestrial stations, as that would be fairer and not just the BBC because they no longer transmit on behalf of the others like they used too.

At the end of the day though, someone needs to pay for it and it isn't fair if some get access to services others are paying for.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

At the end of the day though, someone needs to pay for it and it isn't fair if some get access to services others are paying for.


Exactly.. Thanks for the extra info... I didn't know that the BBC already has taken such huge steps in the market direction....

You sum it up better than I could have. Why should people who own a TV (and maybe don't even ever watch the BBC) subsidize people who have a TV (and maybe like to watch BBC online)?

It's all about leveling it out.

Sure, the system is unfair as you don't pay for what you get - you pay a blanket fee. But in this unfair system it is fairer to tax all who have the ability to receive the broadcast - all else is discriminatory and unfair to the people who own a TV.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I disagree with what you are saying... it's not fairer to make people who watch content online to pay a License fee especially when they don't watch BBC content!!

We already pay an Internet connection per month with phone line rental which should easily cover any costs going out by Companies such as the BBC.... you look at how many people are connected to the Internet and you will see how much cash is coming in already.

I say make it pay per view as this should have been the way many years ago anyway for the TV License!!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by and14263
 


Yes I am sure the BBC had 'adverts' on the radio saying something like 'Students, if you watch TV on your PC you still need a TV licence'

Maybe that applies to live tv rather than catchup stuff?


CX

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
My girlfriend lives in Leeds, she has just told me that she was told by TV licensing last year that if you have a "device" that can receive television signals, then you have to have a tv license.

Just looked on the TV licensing website....



You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - whether it’s a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital box, DVD/video recorder or a TV set - you still need a licence.


Source: www.tvlicensing.co.uk...

Pretty much confirms what they told my girlfriend. If you go by what they are saying on the above welsite, you need a license to watch the tv on your computer NOW, let alone next year.

CX.

[edit on 26/7/10 by CX]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
You already need a TV licence to watch a live TV broadcast on a computer or other mobile device

www.tvlicensing.co.uk...

However, so long as the device you use is not plugged into the mains, then it should normally be covered by your home TV licence (assuming you have one).

There is no suggestion that computer owners will ever be expected to pay a licence (unless they watch live TV), but the current situation is being reviewed.


Source
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has ruled out introducing a licence fee for PCs but has said that his administration will need to find a way to stop people consuming material paid for by the licence fee for free.


CX

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Ah, she's just pointed out that this is "whilst they are being shown", as in at the moment of airing.

She was also told that even if you don't watch the tv, but have the device in the house that was capable of receiving tv channels, you have to have a license. Even if it was not plugged in but in working order, you need a license.

My girlfriend went through a stage of not watching tv, but only dvd's.....they still said that she needed a license.

CX.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


Thanks for the clarification. So even now if you want to watch or record BBC 'live' you need a license anyway. But they cannot enforce that if you watch catchup programs.

So all they have to do is modify the legislation to require you to have a TV license if you have a PC in the household which is as fair as requiring one for having a TV in the household.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


The technology is there to allow only licence holders the ability to view content, this would not be a pay as you go service it would be a licence to view.

We have already purchased our licences for our TV's so all we would need to do is enter the unique licence number into the bbc site and hey presto the content works. If this is not compatible with fairness of law (had to chuckle at that) then they should have reworked the law to fit with the change in technology and not just include new technology that the original law was not devised for.

If we were to have fairness we would have a reworked rule governing the licence, proper attention should be paid to the fact that computer users are not automatically by definition TV viewers or using the equipement for viewing broadcast media. My PC will do almost anything digital that I ask it (within reason). I can also ask it not to do tasks and prohibit behaviour. So if I were to render my computer incapable of receiving britsh broadcasted media originating within the UK would that not be enough to place me outside of this unfair rule?


If law is about what is fair for all then the law would have been rewritten in its entirety and not fudged to close a loophole. What next? mobile phones?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


The beauty of the BBC is that in this day and age it doesnt't have advertising, So I can listen to my favorite radio stations, like Radio 4, 5 and the world service, all without being interrupted with advertising. No adverts on any of the BBC Channels either. I have been to the states a few times and tried to watch TV, but you have about 6 adverts within a 30 minute show. It's crazy.

If I do watch something I prefer to be able to watch a good 30 mins without interruption.

I think the BBC is worth the licence fee.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
We already pay an Internet connection per month with phone line rental which should easily cover any costs going out by Companies such as the BBC.... you look at how many people are connected to the Internet and you will see how much cash is coming in already.


And the BBC, ITV, Ch 4 (another State owned broadcaster) etc get nothing from your internet rental payments to your ISP.

In fact, the ISP's in the middle are laughing as you're paying to access the content and the TV companies are paying to access the internet! Bandwidth doesn't come cheap, you know, not in the volume these guys need.

For example, I work in telecoms and we charge several thousand pounds a month for a 1Gb Ethernet and that's just a drop in ocean for the needs of the broadcasters. The BBC are a major customer of ours and they pay tens of millions every year for the network we provide them.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
i thought the who reason for the license fee was because they don;t have advertisements on bbc but from whay i have seen most of the shows rebroadcast of the net have adds with them so if you bare charged to watch you would be getting charged to watch with embedded commercial



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by coffeesniffer
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


So if I were to render my computer incapable of receiving britsh broadcasted media originating within the UK would that not be enough to place me outside of this unfair rule?


Probably not, it doesn't exempt you if you render a normal tv incapable of viewing BBC.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by proteus33
 


I have never once seen an ad on iPlayer.

Would add a second line, but have nothing more to say...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So all they have to do is modify the legislation to require you to have a TV license if you have a PC in the household which is as fair as requiring one for having a TV in the household.



Which is exactly what they have said they will not do.

But it would not be fair because many people want or need a computer for things other than watching TV programmes. Why should I pay a TV licence just because I want to run a spreadsheet of climatological data or access my bank account?

However, in any case, any new legislation would of course only affect people who watch TV programmes on a computer and do not own a TV (ie do not currently have a TV licence). Most of us have a TV licence (although in my case only because I share a house with someone else - I'd not bother with a TV at all if I lived alone)



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Yes, the current system isnt fair either. Many use TV's for other purposes than watching TV. Two of the TVs in my house have never been used to actually watch TV and I dont even have an aerial.

Nice to see someone from my neck of the woods on here!




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join