Cycling UK Forum

[XAP]Bob wrote:I disagree - I'm not using the service, and so not paying for it. Gaming it would be using the service using some loophole (battery driven devices etc.)

I you use iPlayer to allow you to watch TV without a license then you're using a loophole, in order for it not to be a loophole iPlayer would need to be designed for that purpose and I'm pretty confident it's not.

[XAP]Bob wrote:By your argument driving a small ford is "gaming" the VED system - since you don't pay anything, and the fuel tax system, since you use less. I don't think it is.

No, because that system is designed to allow you to do it, that is after all the whole point! They want you to have a smaller car!
(But they certainly don't want you to use iPlayer as a substitute for a TV license)

It would be trivial for them to add "on demand" services into the listing of licensed activities.

They don't, and have made no effort to do so. I'd suggest that they do intend the iPlayer service to be used to allow people to see programs they may have missed through whatever means. Those means might be "was out at the time" or "don't have a TV".

In the same way that VED is structured to promote smaller vehicles the TV license is structured to promote not watching broadcast TV, so I don't. To make it more "fair" you could reasonably expect them to charge "per TV", "per combined screen inches" or "per household member". The current situation is somewhat Poll Tax like, but you can avoid paying it by not using the service.

I don't object to the BBC, nor do I object to the way they are funded. I just don't use the chargeable service, and therefore don't pay the charge. I don't pay the Severn bridge toll each day, because I don't use that bridge. I don't pay the congestion charge, because I don't drive into London. There are a myriad of charges which I don't pay for.

Dr Who later in the year is likely to be the thing I will watch. But I'll use iPlayer, and - assuming it's good enough (which I hope it will be) I'll get the DVD box set to complete my "modern" Dr Who collection (most of which is simply time-shifted from times when I did pay the license fee.)

[XAP]Bob wrote:They don't, and have made no effort to do so. I'd suggest that they do intend the iPlayer service to be used to allow people to see programs they may have missed through whatever means. Those means might be "was out at the time" or "don't have a TV".

You haven't missed a program if you don't have a license.

iPlayer simply falls through the 'holes' in the archaic legislation by virtue of not being 'live'. And like all loopholes it'll stay open until someone decides to fix it.
The idea that it's deliberate to allow folk without TV licenses to watch TV for free is disingenuous at best.

They explicitly exclude catch up, so I'd suggest that they maybe do want eyeballs - which may decide to license TV later.

[XAP]Bob wrote:They explicitly exclude catch up, so I'd suggest that they maybe do want eyeballs - which may decide to license TV later.

They have to exclude it. A TV license is a license for a TV receiver - it can't cover watching a recording even if they wanted it to.

In fact thinking about it, I'd be interested in knowing how they get around requiring a license to watch it live on iPlayer without a receiver - bet there's a whole can of worms right there...

kwackers wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:They explicitly exclude catch up, so I'd suggest that they maybe do want eyeballs - which may decide to license TV later.

They have to exclude it. A TV license is a license for a TV receiver - it can't cover watching a recording even if they wanted it to.

In fact thinking about it, I'd be interested in knowing how they get around requiring a license to watch it live on iPlayer without a receiver - bet there's a whole can of worms right there...

Because the receiver has merely changed format.

In fact now that the analogue services have been turned off the format hasn't even changed - but instead of multicast iPlayer is unicast (and for that reason is almost more deserving of licensing IMHO)

If they charged non license holders a small fee for each programme watched on iPlayer then I'd be happy to pay that, but they don't.

I *do* pay for three "entertainment" subscriptions - Spotify, Sky Movies and LoveFilm. I'm not anti-paying for the services, but I pay for the services I use, rather than one I don't.

Oh - My first letter "opening an investigation" arrived yesterday - despite me already having completed all the steps listed in the letter...

[XAP]Bob wrote:If they charged non license holders a small fee for each programme watched on iPlayer then I'd be happy to pay that, but they don't.

+1

I'm always happy to pay for what I use, but unhappy to pay a flat rate for stuff I do not use.

Rubbish collections, street lighting, schools, hospitals, police, fire brigade, coastguard and lighthouses, roads, railways etc etc all have to be paid for of course so I have no objection. Taxes and Council tax are fine. Democracy works after a fashion, and it's the best we can hope for.

TV is ubiquitous. It's everywhere. If you never ever watch or listen to the BBC, you can watch and listen to loads of other output instead. You have a choice of what you watch and listen to ....... BBC, or Not BBC.

It's like paying a licence fee to receive a newspaper. Buy which ever newspaper you want, but you still have to buy a licence first.

Watch a couple of good quality programs on BBC - you've got your money back, programs are expensive, try going to the theatre.

Plus: not being tied to ratings for money means the programs produced up the aunty on what the others produce.

I listen to radio and use the web site a lot that's worth the fee on its own. (but its free was the cry - um - I don't know any actors or presenters who work on radio for free).

Just say they abolished the TVL and BBC was somehow funded differently.
Would we have a TV then?
Probably not.

It's only £150 a year, we can afford that easily. It's just that when we paid it, we weren't watching, so if it were free we still wouldn't watch it.

Mick F wrote:Just say they abolished the TVL and BBC was somehow funded differently.
Would we have a TV then?
Probably not.

It's only £150 a year, we can afford that easily. It's just that when we paid it, we weren't watching, so if it were free we still wouldn't watch it.

Yep.

After years of the same old boring repeated cycle of threatening letters, there is finally a change!

No, not a visit from inspectors, a detector van or kicking the door down, just a new letter.

They are now giving me ten days to get correctly licensed and if I do nothing they will START A FULL INVESTIGATION.
I am correctly licensed, so I will do nothing but I bet they dont start any investigation.

On the other hand is this an offer of a ten day free trial of TV without a licence?
They promise not to send any Enforcement Officers around during this period.

At the end it also said that the information was available on-line in the sixteen languages listed below and English wasnt one of them!!! Welsh was though, You lot should really complain.

I've been going through a version of this for the last six months - all communications in English BTW.

Having lived alone for almost 30 years, my mother went into residential care in May, aged 94. That's relevant because she's had a free licence for the last decade or so. As part of the process of ensuring everything was in order, I rang the TVLA to explain that my mother no longer needed a TV licence and that her flat would remain unoccupied and unfurnished until it was sold. I was subjected to a rather grumpy interrogation but I rarely answer back when I'm doing something like this for somebody else, especially my mother. The person at the TVLA wanted to know how long the flat would remain unoccupied; something I obviously didn't know because it depended on the sale and subsequent legal palaver. They eventually came to the point: the info was need to prevent "the letters." I deduce that the only way the chasers can be supressed is by specifying a period. Although the flat is now sold "subject to contract" things drag on slowly and the letters, addressed to "the current occupier" IIRC, have started to arrive. I've no idea whether they will follow this up and I'm not concerned. My mother is old enough to qualify for a free licence but she doesn't need one because she has no telly. The TVLA has been informed and they lack the capacity to process the information effectively. I cannot imagine that they would attempt to obtain a search warrant and then force an entry to the flat, but they could have no reasonable reason to suspect that an offence was being committed, other than their apparently universal assumption that premises without a current licence = offence.

Good luck with this Meic and TC. Keep us informed please.

At this end, we've had no communication other than a nice letter every couple of years and I reply by confirming on-line that we don't own or use a television.

That's all.

I had another letter giving me an expiry date for my license - which I don't have, because I cancelled it.

Apparently I need to give them "proof" that I don't watch television. I pointed out to the person I phoned that I can't give proof that I don't do something, it's simply not possible.

The finally claimed they'd process the refund and cancelled the license.

They epitomise ineptitude...

[XAP]Bob wrote:I had another letter giving me an expiry date for my license - which I don't have, because I cancelled it.

Apparently I need to give them "proof" that I don't watch television. I pointed out to the person I phoned that I can't give proof that I don't do something, it's simply not possible.

The finally claimed they'd process the refund and cancelled the license.

They epitomise ineptitude...

You don't need to give them proof of anything.

You don't have to speak to them at all or reply to any of their letters.

The BBC has a record of harassment which has cost it £100,000 over the last 5 years. That's a disgrace, and shows the true nature of an organisation which is notorious for self praise.

It is bizarre that we have a tax on TV use at all and absolutely disgusting that the state broadcaster harasses people to pay that tax when have no need to.

Surely there is a better way for people to pay for their fix of TV junk like Eastenders.

Do we really need a government tax backed by the criminal law to fund a corporation which is mainly and overwhelmingly a producer of down market, audience chasing, trashy TV and pop music radio?

Taxes backed by the criminal law should be for essentials like hospitals and schools, not TV or radio.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... icers.html