theyarecomingforyou Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 It's common sense - the computer has become an extension of the broadcasting media and threatens the market of the BBC. I know there are some people that resent the compulsory fee but I feel the quality and impartiality provided are very valuable and offers something that other countries just can't match... that is not so say that the BBC is completely impartial, it would be ridiculous to suggest that, however it is not manipulated by sponsors, advertisers and political contributors. Many of the other channels in the UK are incredibly dumbed down - in fact I would go as far as to say that the BBC is the only real news channel we have, as Sky News is very sensationalist and politically driven and I believe than the ITV news channel disappeared recently (though they still have broadcasts at several points through the day). Still, I feel the BBC has dumbed down to some degree in recent years to increase their appeal, so I fear what would happen if they were at the whim of advertisers and contributors. I entirely understand why people object to the licence fee but I feel many do not understand the contribution that the BBC makes to the media (even if people choose not to watch it)... because they don't have to worry about losing advertisers they can afford to take risks and made huge advances online (as the World Cup coverage has demonstrated), not to mention the impact that their news website has had online. Fortunately the BBC still has the support of the country regarding the licence fee and long may that continue, at least until a viable alternative is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhav Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 What u tryed to implement is that BBC has right to exisize comercial right like SKY? well sod them, security & protection issues is down to them, but TV licence is TV LICECE, rest is none of bussines of them! Er, wtf?! Try english please :blink: @huFFamOOse: Whilst I agree that a username/password system would be effective, the BBC are required to make their services accessible to everyone in the easiest possible way. There would be massive logistical problems with getting people to register. e.g. what determines that they've got a TV license? And once you've got a login, couldn't you just log in wherever you go (where no one has paid TV license), or even share your user/pass around? I don't understand why everyone is so anti-TV license. I understand it's really expensive, and it just keeps increasing, but I don't think a lot of people realise how much the BBC has developed. They offer one of the most superior news websites in the world, visited by millions of people around the globe. They offer exclusive audio and video online, and allow you to listen to all their radio stations live. All of this is funded through the TV license. And before anyone tries to suggest that it's not fair that foreigners can view the BBC website, they are currently proposing to show ads to international viewers. Personally, I think they offer a lot for the ?130 or whatever it is per year. Whilst some may argue that they don't use all the services, it's true that more and more people are using the services, and all the new content needs to be ready for the next generation. It's useless realising there's demand for live streaming in 10 years time and not having it ready. Soon the BBC will let you watch almost any programme shown on any of its channels for up to 7 days after its inital airing, to all it's license payers - this is an amazing service, and it's just the start of video-on-demand. And on a more specific note, it's great to have an ad-free channel. I hate it when the ITV has to cut away at half time for an ad break, or the number of ad breaks during a movie. Jeremy Clarkson, in particular, feels it's just not possible to have a show like top gear on a channel with ad breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banzai Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 not that bigger deal, look at it this way in a few years time the howl concept of the bbc could go down the pan anyway. Mind you it is a bit harsh it would be more fair if they said on licence holders could use the bbcs web site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osirisX Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I never even knew TV Liscences existed. It seems here in Australia we had them for the ABC back in the day but then the Labour Government abolished it and now the government funds the ABC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leddy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 You need a license to watch TV?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerm Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I know a fair amount of people who don't watch TV because it's either crap or they just don't have the time. However, they have a PC and an Internet connection for work. Granted, people in that situation are in the minority but why should they be forced to fork out another ?130 for crap that they don't plan on watching anyway? I can see both sides of the argument however. They won't have to if they don't watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mrbester MVC Posted June 16, 2006 MVC Share Posted June 16, 2006 ...I don't think a lot of people realise how much the BBC has developed. They offer one of the most superior news websites in the world, visited by millions of people around the globe. They offer exclusive audio and video online, and allow you to listen to all their radio stations live. All of this is funded through the TV license. There are quite a few revenue streams available to the BBC. The licence fee is just one of them, a major one is the sale of content around the world through DVD, audiobook, licenced redistribution for foreign and domestic TV networks (big one that, you think US gets "The Office", "Monty Python etc. for free? Also all those "pictures from BBC News 24" titles you get over footage on ITV / Channel 4 etc. cost every time they're shown), etc. NICAM wouldn't have been developed and rolled out nationally in the timeframe if the R&D had only been funded by the licence fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgreenough Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Yes i know it's "The Inquirer" but the article has its merits including - The BBC is streaming the football via Real Media, and tuning into the stream does NOT require a licence. The TVLA's quote implying that internet streaming does require a license is again, misleading... it only applies to a broadcast signal. The licensing rules are explicitly clear that you require a licence as soon as you "consume a broadcast television signal". This means that if you have *and use* a device capable of receiving the broadcast signal, such as a TV, a TV tuner card, etc... than yes you require a licence. But the BBC stream via Real Media is *not* the broadcast signal. It does *not* require a TV tuner. And the TV license does *not* broadly apply to all internet streaming and consumption of video of the world cup, even in real time (or as close as streaming gets). Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PabUK Veteran Posted June 16, 2006 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2006 Everyone in the UK who thinks the TV license is unfair (or even not) should check out this website: http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 What the hell is a TV licence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesmithg Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 wow 130 quid to watch tv..... i could never imagene that here in the US. Question though; is that per household or per tv? Well its' per household. If I let a relative stay or rented out a room in my house with another tv in it, then they have to have a seperate licence. This labour government said they would abolish it, but as usual they talk lies. I can't see why we have to pay for a signal, that is some parts of the country you cannot receive and have to get a satellite dish, even with a dish you still have to pay for a signal you cannot receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerm Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 You pay ?130 a year to be able to watch TV. Basically. One for each house hold, your allowed as many TV's as you want, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 How come any time the UK TV license gets mentioned on Neowin, the whole thread descends into a debate about its merits. This thread isn't about TV licenses in general, it's about needing to have one in order to watch online content. While I agree in principle that you shouldn't be able to get it for free just because you're not using a TV, I do think that the current law doesn't stretch to online webcasts. The BBC are trying to scare people into getting a TV license to watch online, but the law does not cover that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesmithg Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 You pay ?130 a year to be able to watch TV. Basically. One for each house hold, your allowed as many TV's as you want, etc. Our TV licence is in my fiance's name. It's paid for by me via direct debit monthly. Couple of years ago, I purchased a TV card via curry's, had to fill in a form. Week later I got a letter from them telling me I have to pay a tv licence. We have one already for our property. However, I or I shall say we can have 50 tv's and signal receiving devices, if I let out a room to a person, even if I stuck a TV in it they have to have a seperate licence. Garry, the point people get cheesed off anytime a licence (TV) is metioned, we already pay for it, well most of us do, then they expect people to pay a licence that don't have a tv or video receiver to then pay is wrong. The BBC (TVLA) make up the rules as they go along, I was told over the phone 4 years ago we pay for a signal, I said I don't have an aerial and use satellite, they said tough, I have equipment that receives TV images. I mentioned this sometime ago about having a TV licence to receive stuff like what the BBC are doing and mentioning that you will also be charged via some tax like a licence by the government to use a computer in your house, I got slated. It's not on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I'll show you who this will hurt: uni students. We can't afford to fork out another ?170 a year (that's the book budget) and most students have a computer and of course internet connection. This just means that the BBC can now sue pretty much the majority of uni students, all at once. At least here, not many watch TV (except in the common room which has a licensed TV anyway) so pretty much nobody has a license. Also, foreigners who don't care about the BBC will also get targeted. That's two reasons they have to fine me. I just hope they don't start actually enforcing this "law". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3AN Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Isnt this just saying if you want to watch BBC online streams you need a tv license, whats wrong with that? everybody else is paying for it, why should you be able to watch it for free? I personally don't mind paying the fee. There are some really good programmes on the BBC such as Planet earth and we don't get adverts every 15mins. Fair enough there is some real crap, look at daytime tv listing it's all bargin hunt this and auction that, but overall the good out weighs the crap. They are also pushing new technologies such as "free" hdtv and online streams of shows. They have in my opinion the best news service in the world and the best news website. I just can't trust a news site/programme which has adverts because would the news site/channel want to offend it's sponsors? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesmithg Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I'll show you who this will hurt: uni students. We can't afford to fork out another ?170 a year (that's the book budget) and most students have a computer and of course internet connection. This just means that the BBC can now sue pretty much the majority of uni students, all at once. At least here, not many watch TV (except in the common room which has a licensed TV anyway) so pretty much nobody has a license. Also, foreigners who don't care about the BBC will also get targeted. That's two reasons they have to fine me. I just hope they don't start actually enforcing this "law". Two things which are unlawfull in my eyes, TV Licence and Poll tax. I could grab you, smack your head in, kick your kids, steal your money and slap your wife and I would get community service. I refuse to pay the money for the other two I get prison time. It's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlibbyFlobby Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) The TV license is a joke. We are forced to fund the BBC who then spend half our money on their digital radio and TV channels, which will cost you extra of course. Its a shame we don't have a government with a back bone at the moment. The reason Labour haven't cut the BBC's funding is because at election time we all know the BBC won't have a bad word to say about them. I don't see why they should charge (UK) internet users for their web streams. The image quality is terrible and the service is definately not worth paying ?100 + for if all users do is watch streams online (ie. not own a TV). I expect the BBC to announce a broadcasting license soon for people who let their friends come around to watch world cup football matches.:wacko:: Edited June 16, 2006 by ziadoz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheppard Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Er, why should you be able to watch ad-free TV online without paying for it?? You choose whether or not to pay for it...you're not forced to. If you don't like it, don't pay for it, and miss out on BBC's quality service. The fact is, the BBC is funded by the TV license, not by ads like ITV. Is ITV even offering live web streams?? :rolleyes: Hardly, they use product placement for advertising, and they are constantly advertising their own TV Shows. Sick of people saying BBC dont advertise. Makes it worse is that they want to up the TV License fee to ?180 just so the fatcats can have a payrise. Id rather watch ad supported than have to pay ?180 even though i hardly watch BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Isnt this just saying if you want to watch BBC online streams you need a tv license, whats wrong with that? everybody else is paying for it, why should you be able to watch it for free? I personally don't mind paying the fee. There are some really good programmes on the BBC such as Planet earth and we don't get adverts every 15mins. Fair enough there is some real crap, look at daytime tv listing it's all bargin hunt this and auction that, but overall the good out weighs the crap. They are also pushing new technologies such as "free" hdtv and online streams of shows. They have in my opinion the best news service in the world and the best news website. I just can't trust a news site/programme which has adverts because would the news site/channel want to offend it's sponsors? I think not. Yes but I don't give a toss about the BBC! I never watch it, online or on TV because it just doesn't appeal to me. The only online streams I watch are France 2 (which is free to watch in France and thus the only thing I should pay and I do pay is the price of traffic) and various French political shows. I have never actually watched a BBC stream. But according to this new law, because my computer and internet connection mean that I could potentially watch such a stream, I should pay ?170 a year?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethevans1986 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I'll show you who this will hurt: uni students. We can't afford to fork out another ?170 a year (that's the book budget) and most students have a computer and of course internet connection. This just means that the BBC can now sue pretty much the majority of uni students, all at once. At least here, not many watch TV (except in the common room which has a licensed TV anyway) so pretty much nobody has a license. Also, foreigners who don't care about the BBC will also get targeted. That's two reasons they have to fine me. I just hope they don't start actually enforcing this "law". I agree.....?130 could be better spent in the pub IMHO. The quality of the stuff which is on the TV is crap anyway, Id rather watch the old classic stuff like Porridge, the Carry On Films etc........but I have to say even the News is appealing these days with some sh*t on the TV! ChocIST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted June 16, 2006 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2006 Er, why should you be able to watch ad-free TV online without paying for it?? You choose whether or not to pay for it...you're not forced to. If you don't like it, don't pay for it, and miss out on BBC's quality service. The fact is, the BBC is funded by the TV license, not by ads like ITV. Is ITV even offering live web streams?? :rolleyes: if you have a TV and dont watch the BBC channels you still have to pay the license, you are STILL FORCED to pay it because you can "potentially" recieve the BBC signals. I personally think TV licences should be scrapped and the BBC should just show adverts like every other channel, the only thing I can say I honestly watch on any BBC channel is Dr Who. Or make it so you pay a few ? a month to get the BBC channels if you want them a bit like the optional Freeview channels (see topuptv.com) Agreed, I'd rather watch Ad Supported TV. They won't have to if they don't watch it. theres no way of telling if you watch it though, is there? because you can "potentially" view it, you need a license. The BBC can suck my left nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PL_ Veteran Posted June 16, 2006 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) IMHO, they are moving with the times. TV can and is now broadcasted over the Internet, so why should those who watch it over the net get it for free, when those who watch it on TV have to pay the lisence fee? Also, how many households in the UK do not have a TV lisence? The answer - very few. tbh, I'd much rather pay the fee than to have the programme interupted every quater of an hour with ads. Absolutely. God, they annoy me. Poll here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=470568 Besides, if you don't want to pay TV license, you obviously don't want to watch TV Edited June 16, 2006 by PureLegend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diffused Mind Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 How exactly do they enforce the whole TV licencing thing anyway? Or is it just more of an 'lets just assume nobody has the licence so we'll pester them from now on' deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PL_ Veteran Posted June 16, 2006 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2006 How exactly do they enforce the whole TV licencing thing anyway? Or is it just more of an 'lets just assume nobody has the licence so we'll pester them from now on' deal? I think they have trackers or something. If you've got a working TV with aerial, but no details on the database, you get fined. It's not flawless, as some people in big flats get wrongly fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts