The licence is a tax basically, to provide commercial-free television. Most people are happy that the BBC exists, while at the same time wishing it was a bit cheaper. It’s fantastically good value though, especially when you take into account its radio stations and online services.
Regarding watching TV online, from the TV licensing website;
Does this mean I can use BBC iPlayer to watch TV I’ve missed, without worrying about a license?
Computers are not excluded. There is a section in the link above defining “television set” as something that can receive live TV programmes but is not “computer apparatus”, but it seems that that term is only used in the sections governing what people who sell or rent TVs must do. Elsewhere the term “televison receiver” is used, “any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service”.
Luckily it doesn’t sound that it’s an issue for you.
IMO, the world would be a poorer place without the BBC. And the BBC is unique in its funding, and better for it. It’s a national treasure, and I’d fight to keep it.
Given the choice, I’d stick with the BBC as it is. Because, frankly, it’s friggin’ amazing.
Who do you think pays for the commercials on your tv - the shareholders of the company advertising, the executives, the supermarket?
Or perhaps you do every single time you shop?
What the BBC Licence is not, unlike that relied on by the commercial tv business model, is a levy added by manufacturers and retailers in order to promote their product or company.
My cable channel provider in Germany includes BBC Intl. as part of my general package (along with CNN, some time of Bloomberg, some MSNBC, and some Comedy Central in the evening - so I can watch 30 min of The Daily Show at 1 am on Mon., and South Park! Juhu!).
I pay a yearly fee to the cable channel for its services (or to be quite correctly: I pay a yearly fee to my landlord as “antenna/cable fee”, because the landlord is expected to provide TV access, can in turn extract a modest fee for keeping said antenna working, but considered it cheaper to make a special deal for all apartments in the 6 houses with the cable company, instead of upkeeping a roof antennae).
In addition, I pay the German TV licence to the GEZ(also for my radio).
My PC and slow internet connection couldn’t handle internet video anyway.
Well thank you for telling me that I’m a liar. I bought a TV about this time two years ago, was required to fill out the form before we could pay for the TV, and we were then pursued by TV Licensing for about a year and a half because we’d filled in the form in my partner’s name but our existing TV licence was in my name. They couldn’t grasp it at all. Their idea of “burden of proof” has always appeared to be “you’ve got a TV. Look, it’s right there. And you have an aerial. So you’re capable of receiving signals. So we’re going to fine you.” I have known many stupid people (mostly students) who didn’t buy licences and got into trouble over it.
You may work for TV Licensing (in which case why are you displaying upcoming events in a shop window), but it would appear that you don’t know everything.
I know such a person - he has several TVs, plus DVD and video kit and a massive library of purchased DVD and VHS. He doesn’t watch any broadcast content.
He de-tuned all of the channels on the TVs and decommissioned the aerial in his loft space - he has to keep writing to the licensing authority periodically in response to their demands that he purchase a licence - so far, he’s been successful in this (he’s been doing it for many years, as I understand).
But has it been true in the past?
I recall having been asked for name and address details when purchasing a TV in the past - and being told it was mandatory for TV licensing purposes.
I’m not saying they were correct in requiring this of me, but I’m pretty sure it at least used to be common practice.
from here
I said no such thing. However, I do think that you are mistaken about the things you said.
I suspect this was a store policy. Certainly it’s possible to buy televisions from some retailers without filling in any licensing forms.
I don’t see what this has to do with your original post. Of course TVL is notorious for hounding people where it’s suspected they don’t have a TV licence. At my home address we get a nastygram every month or so, plus the occasional visit from an enforcement officer. But we ignore them with impunity. We don’t have a television at home, though of course they refuse to accept us at our word; however, there’s nothing they can actually do besides send letters and officers begging for money.
It may have appeared that way, because the enforcement officers do issue conditional threats (i.e., “If you don’t have a TV License and you are using your television to watch TV, then we will fine you! So you better tell us now if you want to get off the hook!”). But they don’t have any power to actually fine anyone unless they can prove that someone is watching TV without a license. But they’re not allowed to enter or search your property without your consent. They can come knocking on your door, but you don’t have to let them in. They may instead resort to less instrusive surveillance methods, such as looking through your windows from the street, or using one of their infamous “TV detector vans”.
Now, at the premises where I actually do own a TV, as I mentioned it’s in a shop-front window, and thus clearly visible to the street. The enforcement officers are aware of it, but ignore it because they know it’s not being used to watch live television.
Yeah, and? Of course people who are legally obligated to purchase a TV licence but who do not (and who are too stupid to avoid the enforcement officers) will get caught and forced to pay a fine. I never said anything to contradict this.
What concern is it of yours? Is it not plausible, or did it not occur to you, that I am using the television for matters unrelated to my employment?
The TV licensing website says it’s a legal requirement.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdealers.jsp
That’s an obligation on the part of the seller, not the buyer. A seller interested in complying with the law may insist on asking for these details before completing a sale, but if he fails to do so, there are no legal consequences for the buyer. Many television retailers, large and small, routinely ignore the reporting requirement. That’s their problem, not ours.
I have been asked for my address, but no effort was made to verify it. Out of an instinctive feeling of “it’s none of your business” I just gave them a made-up address. They happily entered it in the form and proceeded with the transaction. This was at Currys, not some dodgy corner shop. So it may be a legal requirement, but it doesn’t appear that anybody is enforcing the law.
I think this nuanced explanation would have been a lot more useful than the flat out ‘not true’ response you posted upthread.
For most consumers, I doubt there is much perceived distinction between something the customer is obliged to do and something the retailer is obliged to require of the customer.
You’re right; my apologies for not having elaborated earlier.
I don’t know what’s available on cable in the north. I think I heard something about TG4 being made available under the Belfast Agreement.
A complete hijack, but when I was a student in the UK, I was told that if as a student your address was still your parents (even if your were living seperatly) then you were covered under your parents licence? I know that overseas students such as my self often chorlted at that.
Many students did have TV in their flats. I did so as well, but I did pay the fees.
If memory serves, once upon a time students were covered by their parents’ licence, but only for a portable TV with internal batteries. That loophole was closed (coincidentally ;)) at about the time the technology made such a thing a practical option.