Dont need a TV licence

It's somewhat academic, now, though I think it does paint part of a bigger picture in which the BBC does not act in the wider public interest, or, in fact, in good faith.

It's all very well characterising the decision in the benign way that you do - or at least it would be if the person who was responsible for the BBC at the time had not already confirmed that undermining a potential change to subscription was prominent in their thinking. Therefore, that process is not a figment of my imagination, as you imply, but actually stated by the DG of the BBC as being a very valid consideration.

In effect, you are not disagreeing with me, but with Greg Dyke, which seems somewhat pointless. History has been written, and he wrote it.

Bringing this up to date, the Perry Review took advice on this from none other than Michael Grade (that well-known technical expert ) and concluded that Subscription was not presently an option. However, that was before the 1 Sep changes, which look (on first impressions) to have been a disaster for the BBC.

I can certainly see that the BBC will be making further representations to Government before too long, and subscription will be back on the table.

Indeed, but even then they are clinging to the idea that it is about user experience, and they claim that no info will be used in Licence Enforcement.

I wonder how long it will be before the Public and the Government tire of their nonsense?

Sounds like your address's database entry is messed up.

I'm sure if you were to start charging them to deal with their letters, they would soon stop.

silverwhistle wrote: »

Some years ago I did invoice them. It was a very reasonable sum :-), but they didn't pay it.

What happened when you took it to Court?

silverwhistle wrote: »

Another couple of interesting points that you might like to comment on and illustrate the legal complexities..

Some weeks ago I clicked no to a question on the BBC web site as to whether I had a licence, and as a result was not able to view a video clip. No problem there as I understand the new regulations and I was just being inquisitive.

Today I've just seen a clip which said 'Web Exclusive', i.e . it hasn't been broadcast, yet was unable to view it. I'm guessing it's due to the server that is supplying it? Before you ask, clearing cookies did help..;)

Yes - it'll be saving a Cookie on your computer telling the Server that you previously clicked for "No Licence", and now it's automatically rejecting your requests for content. Thanks for mentioning that, as it'll undoubtedly come up again at some point.

The other thing I noticed the other day was on Youtube where some top football clubs put up match videos of their kids and reserve teams. Is that classed as broadcast TV?

No pre-recorded clips/videos on Youtube require a Licence (not even the ones from the BBC). The only thing to watch out for would be live streaming on Youtube that is running in parallel with a traditional UK broadcast, and I can't imagine there is much of that.

If I livestream a webcam of my garden birdtable would that be a broadcast?

No.

Unfortunately, "Live Broadcast" is something of a misleading misnomer, and is not how the legislation is framed. The legislation talks about a "programme service", which I interpret as being a linear TV channel.