Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

oldgrumpygit

TheWise1 wrote: »

Those who like the BBC seem to think they are special do they really, special in what way? and thus everyone should be forced to contribute towards your entertainment, its simple really. Simply wrong

You seem to think its a few people and yet if the BBC was voluntary you'd soon find out the truth! The licence is voluntary no one is forced to pay it



If I wish to watch live television I first have to subsidise your beloved my beloved? Oh dear. BBC first, that is me being forced. Is Eastenders that important to you? Never seen Eastenders
If you choose to watch live TV then you require a licence.




You Beeboids who or what is a Beeboid?don't see how selfish and arrogant that comes across do you

Watching television is a choice not an obligation

System

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

Watching television is a choice not an obligation

It says a lot when the BBC lovers say that, meaning we can't watch anything live unless we've contributed to what you like first.

You say its a choice so how about those that want the BBC pay for it themselves, it would be your choice then and everyone else in the UK would have a choice too......................you know like in a democracy and not a communist state

Nilrem

spacey2012 wrote: »

Why is the licence not a yearly encryption code, it can be done with adult services on digital TV, so them that dont pay dont watch BBC services.
If I opened a shop selling horse meat pies, people would soon object if they had to pay a yearly pie subscription, even if you dont eat my pies.

It is simple extortion and well overdue.
We have hundreds of TV channels that get nothing from the licence, when it was introduced there was only the BBC so it was a subscription.
Scrap it, let them survive on what they are worth like everyone else has to.

For one, I'd point you towards the definition of public service....

For another Encryption is expensive, hard to implement effectively and much more complicated.

Just look at the examples of encrypted services we have in the UK.

Sky - You can only ever use their equipment (regardless of if you've got something that beats it yourself, or it doesn't do what you want), and pay a fee per box for every additional box (something like a tenner a month per receiver).
Every receiver in a house benefiting from a "multi room" sub has to be connected to the same working telephone line at all times to enforce subscription restriction (stop you giving your friend down the road your second/third box).
You cancel your subscription and everything you've recorded on the box tends to get locked out.

Cable - You can only ever use the equipment they supply. Every additional box has an additional fee (no need to connect to the phone line as the box has it's built in return path).

Top up TV - you have to pay the full subscription for every receiver you wish to use.

Then you look at the technical and other considerations behind encryption.
1: Cost.
It costs a fair chunk of cash to supply a suitable CAM and Card per box - a yearly cost in the case of the Card due to the ongoing costs of encryption.
Not to mention the much higher back end costs associated with running an encrypted service.

2: Complexity:
The current system is basically a simple database of addresses, with what will basically be a "yes/no" flag next to the address.
Encryption requires you to:
Track every "authorized card", pair the cards up with receivers, ensure that either you do it on a per card basis, or every receiver has a connection that can be used to check it's in use at the same address as the master card on the account.
Maintain a much larger customer support infrastructure - rather than a relatively small call centre that most people won't need to contact unless they move/change billing method, you need something that has access to the back end to authorize/deauthorize cards, and the staff to deal with the vast increase in calls that come about from having to deal with people moving cards from one box to another, sorting out replacement cards because they've been lost/stolen or damaged, or even just the calls where someone has put the card in back to front.

3:It changes the entire ethos of the BBC. The BBC is meant to supply something for everyone (or near enough).
If it has to be subscription you end up with a service that has to go for the highest viewing figures as their main objective, so you lose the things that make the BBC stand out (quality drama, documentaries etc), and end up with something closer to what C4 and ITV were approaching at one point.
The fact that Discovery appears to be moving towards the cheap and cheerful "reality" TV style rather than factual and documentary gives a hint as to what gets the bigger viewing figures.

This of course ignores the fact that there would be be tens of millions of STB's and TV's that would likely need to be replaced to implement encryption.

Cornucopia

There are a number of errors and unwarranted assumptions in the above post.

In fact, the biggest barrier to utilising a subscription/electronic licence model for the BBC is that the BBC gerry-mandered the Freeview specification so that not all Freeview devices have the capability for conditional access.

Nilrem

LOL at a lot of time.

/looks at number of posts in thread by Nilrem, and number by some other users...(hint by the way, this is my third post in this thread)

Cornucopia, no the biggest issue with subscription for the BBC is that it would
A Change the entire service.

And

B: Cost significantly more - even if every TV and STB in the country came equipped with a suitable, secure CAM as standard (and not just the industry standard cam slot. which still requires an additional bit of hardware).

For example, with the current system there is very little cost involved in the system, and zero cost for additional receivers.
Also no wait when you buy your TV between getting it home, and getting it set up (as opposed to say, having to call a number that might only be open 9-6 or something).

If you go subscription you immediately add the cost of:
Additional call centres and back end systems to deal with the encryption.
The cost of the cards - A few years back, from memory a suitable card for something like Sky/Cable or even your CC (all require similar built in chips with suitably secure encryption that is usually licensed from a third party) was thought to cost about a fiver a time, the cost might have gone down (although given the increasing complexity of the encryptions used I'm not sure).
There is also the ongoing cost of the encryption both on the cards (which will need replacing if compromised*), and at the back end.
Most encryption systems require both a flat rate payment, additional payments for things like volume of cards (IE you pay per X thousand cards), and for things like updates to the encryption, or per year.

Not to mention that you cannot really secure a system that is open enough to allow for third party equipment to be used (IE use a supplied cam in your preferred TV or STB), especially if you don't also require call back of some kind for multi receiver properties (something I don't think Ondigital boxes ever required, and yet another cost and complication).
It's one of the main reasons most Cable/Satellite companies tend to supply their own hardware for the user - if you allow for just a CAM due it's relatively open standard (and the interface is well known), there are ways to monitor the traffic between the CAM and the host, thus making it easier to break the encryption, or do card sharing.
From memory despite the fairly heavy weight and complicated systems both Sky and VM use, there are still ways to "card share" if you know what you're doing.

So the "simple change" would cost more, be quite limiting to users (if you want it effective), and be a pain in the neck for the average viewer.


P.S.
What freeview channels can you subscribe to without a cam?
Are they the pay nightly ones or something? (which I suspect will use a very different sort of encryption system to what would be required for a lengthy subscription)

*As happened to Ondigital (and is part of what killed them off), as happened to NTL/BY before they could afford to upgrade their backend system to do more checks on the box security (took several years), and could roll out new cards to all the customers (took something like a year as they couldn't do it all at once - the call volumes would have been enormous, and iirc required a bunch of boxes to be replaced)

System

Nilrem wrote: »

B: Cost significantly more - even if every TV and STB in the country came equipped with a suitable, secure CAM as standard (and not just the industry standard cam slot. which still requires an additional bit of hardware).

You are ignoring the facts once again like a good Beeboid. The then Director General admitted he wanted them to help give the BBC TV Licence a longer life..................unless you know more than the then BBC Director General?

Nilrem wrote: »

What freeview channels can you subscribe to without a cam?
Are they the pay nightly ones or something? (which I suspect will use a very different sort of encryption system to what would be required for a lengthy subscription)

Yes and the fact remains they exist so cams aren't necessary............you'll have to think harder to keep forcing the public being force to fund the mighty BBC.

I think we both know the BBC would sink if it was down to their fund being voluntary..........this is why people like you defend the BBC on a daily basis with lots of spin

Here's another idea, let the BBC give their "customers" a free STB if they subscribe, voluntary as other companies do

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

The TV Tax man says he is due to visit us today. I wait for his visit.

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

Cornucopia, no the biggest issue with subscription for the BBC is that it would
A Change the entire service.

I think that's very much open to debate. The implication of this suggestion is that the BBC is outside of democratic control - that the BBC would unilaterally change the whole ethos of its service, even though it remained well-funded by the public.

I'd like to think that the Government would see sense and reign it in before that, and therefore our issues with LF enforcement could be resolved, leading to a smooth transition into subscription with little or no change in remit.

And

B: Cost significantly more...

If the Freeview standard had remained with a CAM module, then the marginal additional cost would have been... marginal.

katejo

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

The TV Tax man says he is due to visit us today. I wait for his visit.

So did he come ?

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

katejo wrote: »

So did he come ?

Not yet. Do you think he knows where we live?