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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I do not think the BBC beutiful in any way, I do not care for advertisment free media, I do not care for the pumped up BBC propganda setting itself aloft of other media, it would be like me standing on a soap box in town shouting about how fantastic I am (and I am lol).

The BBC has no hold over me at all I care very little for its existance and products and simply wish I lived in a world where state run media was thought of as untrustworthy and agenda driven.

I dont want to watch british media on my PC and I did not purchase my PC for watching British media. British media turned my computer into a device capable of viewing British media when they started to make it available on the internet, they are the culprets not me and I was here first lol. Either they remove their content or accept the fact not all computer users are interested in there programming.




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Maybe that applies to live tv rather than catchup stuff?

That rings a bell actually. I think that's it.

In fact.....

Why do I need a licence for my PC?

You only need a licence if you use your computer to watch programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV.


Just found that on the BBC
news.bbc.co.uk...

I tell you what though, above that link there's a bit saying that even if you just have a DVD player you have to have a licence:

Do I need a licence?

The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device, to receive TV signals, must buy a licence.

This includes video recorders, set-top boxes and DVD recorders.


That's one of those 'laws' that makes me want to go on a rampage round the BBC building armed with a baseball bat.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by and14263
 


This whole thing about needing a TV License just to watch DVD's is ridiculous....

If you don't watch TV at all then you shouldn't need a License just to watch DVD's!!

One other thing i forgot to mention was ...... if i was going to watch say 1 or 2 hours of TV a day, why should i have to pay the same amount for a License as someone who is watching 7 or 8 hours a day?

So yes, a pay-as-you-view would be much fairer IMO. And this should only be applied to those websites which show live content or catch-up TV such as the BBC. I think the sites which have uploadable content provided by people who just want to share stuff should be allowed to continue as they are...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Common Good
 


A license fee is a fixed amount you have to pay each year (or broken into small montly payments) if you use or have in your home equipment able to recieve a TV signal. It basically pays for the BBC.

Wow, that's absurd to me. What if you have a TV but you don't use it for watching television? Say you only use it for DVDs or you keep a TV in your observatory to display the video signal from your scope? You still have to pay for it? I'm glad I'm in the US.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by and14263
I tell you what though, above that link there's a bit saying that even if you just have a DVD player you have to have a licence:

Do I need a licence?

The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device, to receive TV signals, must buy a licence.

This includes video recorders, set-top boxes and DVD recorders.



Notice that it says "DVD Recorder" not player. That's because the law says it is illegal to play or record TV signals at the same time as it is shown on TV.

Using catch-up services such as iPlayer is legal without a license so long as you avoid any live broadcasts.

I have not had a TV license (or a TV) for about five years, but I do use catch up services such as iPlayer and ITV Player on my PC. I also watch DVDs using my DVD drive and a TV sized monitor. When browsing the BBC web site I need to be careful not to click on any links that show live broadcast content or I would be breaking the law.

I cannot think how they would change legislation to make it so that viewing a catch-up service required TV license. It would need to be worded well or suddenly every company in the UK would need TV licenses for their computers as they can all potentially be used to watch catch-up services.

Changing the law from its current form would be a big can of worms.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Crayfish
 

Aah yeah you're right... It does just say 'recorders'. That's not too bad then, even though you could just want to be recording things off ITV or whatever. In fact... I believe with most of the digi boxes available now you don't have the opportunity to own a TV and a box and say: "I don't have BBC tuned in". I'm not sure if this is a valid excuse/reason anyway but it just occured to me that once the box is on all channels can be viewed.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish
It would need to be worded well or suddenly every company in the UK would need TV licenses for their computers as they can all potentially be used to watch catch-up services.


I saw a quote from a representative of the BBC saying exactly that. Companies should have a TV license because their PCs can be used to watch live tv.

I will post the link if I can find it again... Here it is link

And the law will have to be worded very well, for example, is buffering a live stream for a duration longer than the duration of the program so it isn't viewed live classed as 'recording'

[edit on 26/7/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


I am in America, I think it's sad that you guys have to pay for the BBC instead of having commercials and make your TV free like ours. It's a form of money making and power trips. You are slaves to the BBC.

Some say, " yeah but we don't have commercials".. Big deal.. you quickly get used to them and wouldn't it be better if your tv was free?

In America here, I watched every episode of the recent Doctor Who BBC tv shows the day they came out. I did not pay the BBC one thin dime. When the series was over, people in America was still waiting for it to air.

I also have them recorded and I get the Dr. Who video game here in America the day they come out on the bbc dr. who web site. ( Only those in the UK are supposed to be able to download this free game)

If you don't want to have to pay the internet tax to watch tv, just do what I do. Don't use those services and find other ways to obtain your programs.



[edit on 26-7-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I for one don't mind paying the small amount it costs for the beeb.

It ensures that all TV isnt commercial and that both tv and radio programs are created for minority interests.

Adverts don't really bother me as I watch virtually everything on a recording system so they take a few seconds to skip.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Why do you need a licensee to watch TV shows?

Gotta get permission to stare at a screen?

I'll take American TV any day. Free!!!

[edit on 7/26/2010 by mnmcandiez]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Easy way out:

torrents






posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This is simply asinine. Only in an overt Orwellian nanny state do people chime in to support this crap.

People are coming in and talking about how it's "not fair" that some people have to pay for what They Watch, while the people that don't watch it, Don't Pay. Wow, what a concept, paying for the services that you use. Man, who is the crazy bastard who thought of that?!

Furthermore, please explain to me why the BBC needs licensing revenue on top of ads, contracts, and however else they get money? The BBC isn't some local public broadcasting station, struggling to get by, *needing* your licensing fees. It's an international broadcasting Conglomerate. It doesn't need any of your freaking coin. Are you all mad?!?

The only fairness being proposed is the greedy fairness for the BBC, not for the well-to-do fairness of the wholesome population!


Sometimes, I just do not want to keep my ear to the rail anymore.. It's too maddening.. ugh.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by SyphonX]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Just to say, if you don`t fancy paying a TV license, just NEVER give the TV Licensing "Authority"(haha, authority! pff) your name.

They are a for profit company, and in the UK when you volunteer your name to them, you are effectivley representing the company of "John SMith" for example and this is the only they can do business with you. Without your name they have no customer and nothing can be done.

There is no law that say we must pay a license fee, only an act of parliament. We as humans are bound only by common law in the UK, for us to be subject to acts of parliament, we must represent the company which is the legal "person", which is your name.

If the license man comes to your door, just don`t give your name. Simple.
They can`t force your name out you.

Here is another way to beat them, although it would take some courage to go this far

All the UK crew on here, this is a great website to suss out the law, it`s TPUC.org



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


The BBC doesn't have adverts etc. Its revenue comes from the licence fees.

I will keep my licence fee, no radio and TV adverts and the BBC thanks.

Oh and the sensible morning program that isn't targetted at those with the mentality of a 10 year old.


[edit on 26/7/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I just don't understand why people have such an issue with paying for a TV licence.

They often claim that ITV, Channel 4 etc don't charge so why should the BBC? Well you do pay for the commercial channels, indirectly, every time you buy something. All that advertising isn't 'free' and the cost is simply added to all the products and services you buy. You not only have to put up with advertisement breaks interrupting your viewing, but also pay for the privilege via the increased product costs.

And there are many who object to the £11.88 a month fee but who quite happily pay between £18 and £45 a month for Sky TV packages. And still have the advertisements on top of that. Effectively paying twice over and still having to endure incessant advertising. Doesn't make sense to me at all.


btw I don't usually have a huge issue with adverts, but as a Formula One racing fan I suffered from 10 years of dreadful ITV coverage. Half a dozen commercial breaks during a 90 minute race just isn't funny (they don't do it with football for example). I lost count of the number of times they came back from a break with "while you were away Schumacher had a puncture and spun off" or some similar enjoyment wrecking off-screen event


So I'm glad F1 is back on the BBC and I'm perfectly happy to pay for their uninterrupted coverage. Not to mention all the radio stations and the quality programming on BBC3 and BBC4. Sorry if I sound like a BBC shill



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Can I just ask this...what the hell is a "TV licence"...I don't live in the US obviously...but that to me just sounds absurd...can't you just go out and buy a TV and tune it into the free to air stations? Do you have those?

EDIT:


If the license man comes to your door, just don`t give your name. Simple.
They even come to your door?!? ...


[edit on 26/7/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Yes they do come to your door. They have trucks and held held scanners that can (or could) pick up that you are using a TV. The TV licence people make the intelligence agencies look bad.

I recently moved to a brand new house and the TV licence demand was there with my name on it before anything was signed. I haven't a clue how they would know.

Every other service still doesn't have our address in their database.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
Can I just ask this...what the hell is a "TV licence"...I don't live in the US obviously...but that to me just sounds absurd...can't you just go out and buy a TV and tune it into the free to air stations? Do you have those?

It's an annual licence we in the UK pay for for posession of equipment that counts as a TV receiver (that can receive TV signals eg TV set, VCR, PC tuner card etc)

It started life as a Radio Licence back in the pre TV days as a means to fund the BBC which was the only broadcaster back then. The TV licence followed in due course. Later commercial television stations came along which were funded by advertising.

Nowadays it pays for the BBC so it doesn't have to rely on advertising revenue. This covers the BBC TV and radio stations and internet services.

The commercial channels having lost a lot of advertising revenue during the economic downturn began to lobby for a slice of the TV licence fee, and I believe they have been successful in this.

So the 'free' TV channels are now funded partly by the TV licence, and the increased cost of advertised products. And people say commercial TV is free.

And yes, they have a database of licence owners, and they do come to the door (though this may be an urban myth - can't remember the last time I saw a TV detector van, many years ago)

Edit to add: I have Freeview channels, but the licence is for the TV set itself.


[edit on 26/7/10 by Crazy Man Michael]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy Man Michael
And there are many who object to the £11.88 a month fee but who quite happily pay between £18 and £45 a month for Sky TV packages. And still have the advertisements on top of that. Effectively paying twice over and still having to endure incessant advertising. Doesn't make sense to me at all.



The difference is, the people buying the "Sky TV Packages" choose to do so. They say, hey.. I'd appreciate some good TV programming, so I'm going to buy that.

The proposal here is that, for simply owning a device that can "transmit the BBC", you are thereby required (as in *mandatory* tax) to pay the license fee, even if you don't watch it. With no measures put in place whatsoever, to see if you actually watch it or not.

What's not to understand? How can it be argued that this is fair?
------------

I don't live in the UK, clearly, so please explain to me how you folks over there view the BBC. I'm getting the impression that you relate to a government service that is worthy of being taxed. Is it a pseudo-Govt. service, or is it an entertainment service?

Then please explain to me why everyone should have to pay a license fee for owning a computer or owning a TV to watch movies?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy Man Michael
It's an annual licence we in the UK pay for for posession of equipment that counts as a TV receiver (that can receive TV signals eg TV set, VCR, PC tuner card etc)

That's just ridiculous. If I were in the UK I'd be making a big stink about it. I use a PC tuner card, TV, etc for the purposes of astronomy, but I have no interest in the BBC or regular television for that matter. There's no way they'd be getting a fee from me for owning that equipment to pay some broadcaster I have no interest in watching. They shouldn't have a say in your right to own such equipment. If they want to lock down who can watch the BBC there are plenty of ways to do that. If you broadcast something over the air un-encrypted you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join