Romeo Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Can only imagine that there will be a few P&Bers unhappy that you now have to pay for a TV license even when watching catch up on other devices. I still say that the BBC is great value for money (but less so these days) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 The BBC are nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcat1990 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Privatise the shit outta the BBC imho. The cost of the TV licence doesn't for me justify the product and more folk are just dodging paying anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerTon Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 51 minutes ago, Romeo said: Can only imagine that there will be a few P&Bers unhappy that you now have to pay for a TV license even when watching catch up on other devices. I still say that the BBC is great value for money (but less so these days) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030 Advert free TV & radio £145 per year. When you consider the 'basic' Sky package is about twice the cost of the licence fee per year, and most people with 'basic' Sky probably mostly watch BBC / ITV etc. Cheaper getting a Freesat recording box and plugging the two antenna cables into that (when Sky contract up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 The BBC are nice I agree. The BBC are nice and very honest people with no skeletons in the closet.Regards, J Saville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Romeo said: Can only imagine that there will be a few P&Bers unhappy that you now have to pay for a TV license even when watching catch up on other devices. I still say that the BBC is great value for money (but less so these days) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030 It is unclear how the new rules will be enforced 'do you own a TV license?' *snigger* 'Yes' 'carry on viewing' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarusQPFC Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, FlyerTon said: Advert free TV & radio £145 per year. When you consider the 'basic' Sky package is about twice the cost of the licence fee per year, and most people with 'basic' Sky probably mostly watch BBC / ITV etc. Cheaper getting a Freesat recording box and plugging the two antenna cables into that (when Sky contract up) Except that there's nothing to watch on the BBC, they have buried everything that used to be great about the BBC. The best thing that's been on the BBC in the last few years was American Crime Story OJ trial but the BBC didn't even make it. Never been in a situation to pay a TV license, but even if I was I would outright refuse to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Advert free TV & radio £145 per year. Yeah, I had to give up on all the various Channel 4/5, ITV channels, Dave* etc and local radio stations (basically the majority of everything) because I couldn't deal with a couple of minutes of adverts every quarter of an hour. *probably should have avoided anyway tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc_smfc Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 I don't mind the license fee, although I don't generally watch much television. The amount I use BBC news, sport and food along with the occasional documentary, never mind anything that channel 4 makes the fee decent value to me. I can understand people moaning about the lack of quality in some areas, but it's till better than some of the utter tripe you pay through the teeth for with Sky or Virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Telly-o-vision. How terribly last century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 I just wish that we got a reasonable service for the money we put in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lubo_blaha Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Surely applying the fee to iplayer isn't enforceable at all? Sounds like scare tactics to bring in more money imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Richelieu Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 I'm doing an audition for a new BBC1 quiz show next week. As part of the telephone interview, I was asked whether I had a TV licence. When I said no, the lassie said that might be a bit of a problem. I've no idea whether to be scandalised by this or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Surely applying the fee to iplayer isn't enforceable at all? Sounds like scare tactics to bring in more money imo. It's not. They can sing for their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Indeed. If it's the rule that you need one if you have any device capable of receiving a tv signal (is it?), then would that then mean that you'd need a licence if you own any tablet / computer / phone with an internet connection? Can see that being a nightmare for them. I just wish that we got a reasonable service for the money we put in Tbf, would the rest of that figure not include material targeted at the whole of the UK (i.e. aimed at Scotland, just not exclusively)? Somebody's got to pay thousands in news reporter's expenses for 60 secs of coverage live from Turkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 1, 2016 Author Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said: Yeah, I had to give up on all the various Channel 4/5, ITV channels, Dave* etc and local radio stations (basically the majority of everything) because I couldn't deal with a couple of minutes of adverts every quarter of an hour. *probably should have avoided anyway tbf. Can you imagine programming like David Attenborough's the Blue Planet being stopped every 15 minutes for 3 minutes of adverts for fanny pads and washing powder? f**k....right....off. I assume you wouldn't mind the football being interrupted every 15 minutes for a few adverts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 When asked how they were going to enforce this new rule, the Licensing Agency claimed they could detect WiFi signals and tell which property it was coming from using their vans, "just like" they do for detecting a signal for old-school television. In claiming this they very helpfully made clear to the entire population that they have absolutely no means of identifying and proving that an individual or household is viewing licence-fee-required content, either online or offline, other than if you allow them into your house to physically look at your laptop or television. This is moderately funny as it should if anything be considerably easier technologically speaking to track-down unlawful internet access to BBC services than it should with a television. With the right data-protection access, anyone not going out of their way to use proxies and other means of concealing their online identity could be traced by their IP address, cross-referenced with the records of their ISP and a residential address derived from that. The TV Licensing Agency does not, of course, have the legal power to search a property like the police can. They would need some sort of court order or warrant and law enforcement assistance. They never seek this. You're not even required by law to give them your name if they appear at your address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Can you imagine programming like David Attenborough's the Blue Planet being stopped every 15 minutes for 3 minutes of adverts for fanny pads and washing powder? f**k....right....off. I assume you wouldn't mind the football being interrupted every 15 minutes for a few adverts? Tbf sky itv etc don't interrupt the footy every 15 min for ads. You also have a choice if you want to subscribe to sky BT etc but have to give bbc that cash even if u never use their content. The natural history dept is a broadcasting treasure undoubtedly and I for one enjoy the bbc 4 output. The news sport and prime time output is pretty awful tho. Not sure if it's fair to say it was better in the past or just that there was less basis for comparison. It's a hideously conservative and self satisfied organisation though and I'm not sure there is anyway that's likely to approve in the meantime. Eta Attenborough's stuff on sky has also been excellent albeit because he has set the bar on serious programming. Also a huge fan of the Brian cox stuff on the beeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 When asked how they were going to enforce this new rule, the Licensing Agency claimed they could detect WiFi signals and tell which property it was coming from using their vans, "just like" they do for detecting a signal for old-school television. In claiming this they very helpfully made clear to the entire population that they have absolutely no means of identifying and proving that an individual or household is viewing licence-fee-required content, either online or offline, other than if you allow them into your house to physically look at your laptop or television. This is moderately funny as it should if anything be considerably easier technologically speaking to track-down unlawful internet access to BBC services than it should with a television. With the right data-protection access, anyone not going out of their way to use proxies and other means of concealing their online identity could be traced by their IP address, cross-referenced with the records of their ISP and a residential address derived from that. The TV Licensing Agency does not, of course, have the legal power to search a property like the police can. They would need some sort of court order or warrant and law enforcement assistance. They never seek this. You're not even required by law to give them your name if they appear at your address. Playing the odds though aren't they. Plenty of people won't realise this and will hand over their dosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 You can get around it if you are a student living away from home and your parents have a license. As long as you watch iplayer on a tablet/phone that isn't plugged into the mains. As soon as you plug it in it becomes illegal again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.