I wonder if the enforcers have changed their system to asking on what grounds people think they don't need a licence. I fancy they may get a lot of replies on the lines of "I don't watch BBC" or "I have a Sky subscription."
thirdcrank wrote: ↑25 Mar 2022, 10:59am
I wonder if the enforcers have changed their system to asking on what grounds people think they don't need a licence. I fancy they may get a lot of replies on the lines of "I don't watch BBC" or "I have a Sky subscription."
I'm thinking at a simpler level. I suspect that some people who don't have a TV licence but who subscribe to something like Sky logically assume they don't need a licence if they don't watch BBC.
Hi,
If Mick F leaves his box whatever connected to the net it will auto update including retune tv stations and up date apps and iPlayer.
whilst he is asleep......................................!
Or next possible earliest connected to the net and or Ariel.....................
I see he needs a license?
Watch / is connected and can receive.....................?
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Once you have found the regulations, the relevant bits seem pretty straightforward,
I think so, you think so - but does everybody think so?!
Not to me, really. It looks as though you can pay for a subscription service that you receive online, not through the airwaves, and still have to pay for a TV licence even if you only view that service. And could anyone detect that you are watching that service, if you keep your curtains drawn? It lacks an obvious rationale. Why should watching a live online programme from a non-BBC provider require a licence, but watching the same programme the next day, as a recording, not require a licence?
The BBC is and should remain a national asset, and as such it would perhaps be better funded direct from taxation. It would be simpler and cleaner, and it would not cost more than it does now.
Anybody who wasn't glued to their set this morning and making the most of their licence fee, the fire alarm is reported to have gone off during "flagship" programme BBC Breakfast. As I write this, a clip of this happening is at number three in the "Most watched" section on the Home page of BBC News
Once you have found the regulations, the relevant bits seem pretty straightforward,
I think so, you think so - but does everybody think so?!
Not to me, really. It looks as though you can pay for a subscription service that you receive online, not through the airwaves, and still have to pay for a TV licence even if you only view that service. And could anyone detect that you are watching that service, if you keep your curtains drawn? It lacks an obvious rationale. Why should watching a live online programme from a non-BBC provider require a licence, but watching the same programme the next day, as a recording, not require a licence?
Unless the recording is a BBC program!
pwa wrote: ↑26 Mar 2022, 5:44amThe BBC is and should remain a national asset, and as such it would perhaps be better funded direct from taxation. It would be simpler and cleaner, and it would not cost more than it does now.
You will explain the rational in needing a TV License to watch a NON BBC program?
Whilst you then want the license to be covered by the tax payer?
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
You will explain the rational in needing a TV License to watch a NON BBC program?
Whilst you then want the license to be covered by the tax payer?
The licence thing is a bit of a mess in itself, but there is a great benefit to all of us in the BBC continuing to exist. Even those of us who never watch it, listen to it or use its news website. It sets a standard that commercial alternatives must seek to match if they want to attract an audience. On TV, its lack of commercial adverts means that the BBC's commercial rivals cannot have more adverts than they already do, or viewers would be likely to stick to the no-ad BBC. BBC news and current affairs programmes set a high standard that forces other providers to aim high too. The same applies across the spectrum of output. Take that away and the commercial media that remained would become the dross that exists in many other countries. Even those who never watch or listen to the BBC would see a decline in quality. That is why it is worth having national revenue funding the BBC, from taxation, but with the BBC protected from day to day political meddling by a board of governors appointed by a committee of Parliament rather than by the Government.
pwa wrote: ↑26 Mar 2022, 5:44amThe BBC is and should remain a national asset, and as such it would perhaps be better funded direct from taxation. It would be simpler and cleaner, and it would not cost more than it does now.
pwa wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 4:40am
That is why it is worth having national revenue funding the BBC, from taxation, but with the BBC protected from day to day political meddling by a board of governors appointed by a committee of Parliament rather than by the Government.
The argument that is usually made for funding from an almost-compulsory fee rather than taxation is that it makes it easier to avoid that political meddling. I don't know if it's true.
Jonathan
PS: Single-payer health systems have the same risk. If the money goes through the Treasury it's open to political control. In that case it's possible to set up processes and even statutory processes to reduce interference, but in practice a lot of it ends up relying on the self-restraint of the individual Secretary of State.
pwa wrote: ↑26 Mar 2022, 5:44amThe BBC is and should remain a national asset, and as such it would perhaps be better funded direct from taxation. It would be simpler and cleaner, and it would not cost more than it does now.
pwa wrote: ↑27 Mar 2022, 4:40am
That is why it is worth having national revenue funding the BBC, from taxation, but with the BBC protected from day to day political meddling by a board of governors appointed by a committee of Parliament rather than by the Government.
The argument that is usually made for funding from an almost-compulsory fee rather than taxation is that it makes it easier to avoid that political meddling. I don't know if it's true.
Jonathan
PS: Single-payer health systems have the same risk. If the money goes through the Treasury it's open to political control. In that case it's possible to set up processes and even statutory processes to reduce interference, but in practice a lot of it ends up relying on the self-restraint of the individual Secretary of State.
Indeed. But so far, with the BBC, we have a (in all but name) publicly funded broadcaster that produces news and current affairs output that is often critical of the government of the day. We always have that tension, with the Left thinking it is too far to the right and the Right seeing the BBC as a bunch of Lefties, but somehow the BBC keeps on probing the government and its opponents in a way that does allow the viewer to think about issues. So far, the BBC has managed to avoid being in the pocket of the government. But it would be wise to have this protected in a more formal way because we see in other nations what happens when the state controls media.
NATURAL ANKLING wrote: ↑25 Mar 2022, 2:53pm
Hi,
If Mick F leaves his box whatever connected to the net it will auto update including retune tv stations and up date apps and iPlayer.
whilst he is asleep......................................!
Or next possible earliest connected to the net and or Ariel.....................
I see he needs a license?
Watch / is connected and can receive.....................?
It's switched off. Power lead disconnected.
Completely unused and AFAIC, I'd get rid of it tomorrow!
Looks like Mrs Mick F won't be getting home until early May - should have been April 20th but it looks like she'll have to extend her stay. When she gets back, she'll be wanting the goggle-box on ........... but only when I'm in bed.
My lack of response has upped their anti to DEFCOM4.
Red envelopes and indecipherable codes are the latest weapons of choice. Perhaps the code resembles a legal reference that career criminals would recognise but it’s lost on an angel like me.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.