tv license required if u watch tv using broadband!

Gordon_the_Moron

The problem with ads just at the end of each show though is everyone would do as you say, go and make a drink or go to the toilet and not watch them... seriously near enough everyone so the value of the ads would be significantly lowered.

Dan29

nej wrote:

I pay £20-odd to Telewest for a hundred or so channels.

You're confusing the delivery of channels with the production of programmes. Telewest don't make programmes for these hundred or so channels, they just provide the technology to get the channels onto your television.

If you cut the funding, the quality of the programmes is forced down, and other channels are free to reduce the quality of their programming as there's nothing decent to compete with any more.

nej wrote:

Realistically of course, the BBC should start to show adverts like the other channels and scrap the fee. £10 per month for 2 main channels and a few cable-only ones (that you pay for regardless of whether you can actually watch them or not) is very steep

Plus 10 national radio stations, almost 50 local radio stations, and the BBC website.

Alfie_E

nej wrote:

Logically, this is actually sound. If you require a TV Licence to watch TV in this country, then surely it doesn't matter whether you are using a TV set or a computer monitor, or whether you are watching it over the air, or via an internet connection.

The problem is that it goes much further. The true situation is much more general than the TV Licensing spokeswoman’s quote. She should have said, “If you are watching TV at the same time as it is being broadcast anywhere in the world, you need to be covered by a valid licence.” This is part of the recent amendments, due to people watching foreign satellite TV, where the broadcast originates from outside the UK, and claiming they therefore didn’t need a license. So, that’s a license needed for any Internet TV.

This is a hugely anomalous situation. Why should I need a license to use part of the Internet? No-one else is laying claim to other otherwise free parts of it, and demanding a charge. Should I worry that some publisher will be knocking at my door demanding payment for reading the MSE website?

Crabman

I've never understood why a licence isn't needed to listen to the radio if the funding eminates from the licence fee

nej

Dan29 wrote:

You're confusing the delivery of channels with the production of programmes. Telewest don't make programmes for these hundred or so channels, they just provide the technology to get the channels onto your television.

If you cut the funding, the quality of the programmes is forced down, and other channels are free to reduce the quality of their programming as there's nothing decent to compete with any more.


Plus 10 national radio stations, almost 50 local radio stations, and the BBC website.

I wasn't confused - I understand the difference! That's the perception, though, if you see what I mean.
If Telewest were to create all these programmes themselves, I'd pay hundreds of pounds per month. However, the advertisers pay for them.

And as for nothing to compete with... not quite true. There's advertising money to compete for. If one channel shows great programmes that more people watch, then advertisers would pay more to advertise on that channel. That's how it works now, and why you get stupid adverts for complete crap on the little-watched cable channels, but "brand" adverts on the main ones.

ckerrd

"The radio is free to listen to"

BBC Radio (and there is a hell of a lot of it) is funded by the licence fee.
It is advertising that supports commercial radio so that is a little bit of the things you buy .
Sadly nothing is free.

Dan29

nej wrote:

I wasn't confused - I understand the difference! That's the perception, though, if you see what I mean.

Yes, I see what you mean. However a lot of people say they resent "paying twice", i.e. paying the licence fee and paying Sky or a cable company, but it's a bit of an irrelevant argument as Sky/ntl don't pay the BBC to appear in their channel line-up.

nej wrote:

If Telewest were to create all these programmes themselves, I'd pay hundreds of pounds per month. However, the advertisers pay for them.

Indeed but of course the advertisers then increase the price of their products to pay for the advertising, so when you buy soap or breakfast cereal a percentage of the price you pay goes to the commercial broadcasters.

nej wrote:

And as for nothing to compete with... not quite true. There's advertising money to compete for. If one channel shows great programmes that more people watch, then advertisers would pay more to advertise on that channel. That's how it works now, and why you get stupid adverts for complete crap on the little-watched cable channels, but "brand" adverts on the main ones.

Well not quite. Advertisers pay more to advertise during popular programmes, not good programmes. The occasional good documentary on ITV1 often has few or no adverts during its breaks. What would be the incentive to make documentaries at all if they could show wall-to-wall quiz shows which cost less to make and generate more advertising revenue? In my opinion that is what would happen if there was no BBC to set a standard, free from the commercial pressure of having to appeal to the largest possible audience and therefore the lowest common denominator.

nej

Good points, Dan. Especially the one about prices increasing for all of us.

steady__eddie

I bought the Aldi laptop which they had on offer in August (please don't laugh, I also drive a Skoda) and I've just had a letter demanding money with menaces from Bristol. I contacted Medion and asked them if it was capable of receiving T.V. I'm only just getting to grips with XP so Vista is a new kettle of worms for me. They have just replied saying no it isn't capable on its own, I need to fit a tv card or a USB thingy. I was about to write back to Bristol politely suggesting where they shove their request until I read this and the all important link in the first post. I shall now just have to write back to them politely suggesting where they can shove their request because there is a licence and it is in the name of OH. (yet another reason to postpone the divorce)

ckerrd

steady_eddie, I assume from what you have written that you have a licence at the moment.

Have the TV Licensing people actually asked you to stump up the money for a new licence?
If so and you are bored you should write back asking them why?
(as you have said here your OH has a licence and your PC cannot receive broadcasts)

You can have hours of endless fun.

I eventually had two gentlemen call from the licensing mob, one rang my doorbell while the other stayed at the bottom of the steps, maybe he was the "back-up"

They had all sorts of official bits of paper and said "we have no record of a licence at this address".

I pointed out that I had been informing their colleagues for some time that there was a licence. I offered to show them it and they were most upset when I was able to produce said licence. One guy initialed it and they went on their way.
Got another threatening letter about a month later, which went straight in the bin as I was fed up playing and I have heard nothing since.

Like you S_E licence is in OH's name.