Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

Not_Another_Username

Thank you Ali.

I should look at the TVL Resistance site. I just wish I had more hours in the day at the moment to digest all this information. I spend far too much time on the computer as it is, but I will certainly browse through the site.

It's sad, and I'm sure quite correct, that we would doubtless be paying for the TV licence in one form or other should it ever be scrapped. They have us by the wotsits no matter how you look at it.

Hopefully things will change to a fairer system in the years ahead, but it's a business no matter how you look at it and certainly won't pay for itself. If we ever reach a stage where we can choose individual channels on a subscription package, then that may be fairer, but the fact that we already have smaller 'bundles' of channels we can subscribe to might be the beginning of that process.

I don't think the TV Licence can possibly exist for much longer.

onomatopoeia99

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

I don't think the TV Licence can possibly exist for much longer.

Almost every country in Europe has it in some form (many also have advertising on the state broadcaster), so it will be around for a while. Further, some, like Denmark, require the purchase of a TV licence by anyone with receiving equipment. 3G mobile phones are classed as receiving equipment as they have data speeds high enough to watch streamed TV.

Here you only have to pay if you watch or record TV as it is broadcast.

Cornucopia

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Almost every country in Europe has it in some form (many also have advertising on the state broadcaster), so it will be around for a while. Further, some, like Denmark, require the purchase of a TV licence by anyone with receiving equipment. 3G mobile phones are classed as receiving equipment as they have data speeds high enough to watch streamed TV.

Mobile phones are licenceable here, if they are used to receive TV broadcasts by people who don't already have (access to) a licence for another reason.

I still find this negative narrative about Licence Fee abolition highly suspicious.

If we're dealing with meta-arguments, I would say that the enforceability of present UK Licence Fee is heavily reliant on scare tactics and the abuse of citizens' rights such that it is unsustainable in the era of the Internet.

The present enforcement regime is probably unlawful.

silverwhistle

Cornucopia wrote: »

I still find this negative narrative about Licence Fee abolition highly suspicious.

Funnily enough I don't, and that's speaking as someone who is legally licence free.

Having visited the US and lived for many years in Italy I really don't want to go down that road. I do see TV in other people's houses and, although it doesn't make me want to rush out and buy one, can appreciate that some of the programming is good and mercifully advert free. To the 'BBC is left/right wing' goons I'd refer you back to the countries above! Then of course there is the radio, which is what will be on when the goons visit: either R4 or R3 * I couldn't object to a radio licence..

*Actually, tonight I was working at my desk and thought I'd listen to the FA cup match on R5L: for a brief instant I got the TV transmission.

Cornucopia

I don't really have a problem with the ads. Sometimes when I watch commercial catch-up TV, the same ad is repeated twice in a row, and even that doesn't bother me that much. OTOH sometimes the programmes go out without ads.

It's a simple principle that I absolutely accept - the programmes have to be paid for, and that's what the ads are for.

In the case of the BBC, there are two ad-related issues.

1. The nature of large chunks of the BBC 1 schedule (and also R1 & R2) is that the programming is indistinguishable from that provided by ad-funded commercial channels.

2. I don't accept that changing the name of the Licence Fee to "BBC Subscription" overnight would automatically and immediately lead to wholesale change in its output, especially if its licensing and regulation is effective.

If, 18 months down the line, the BBC is being subscribed to by 85%+ of households, that's great, and it's hard to imagine the BBC risking that 85% by haring-off down market in search of the other 15%.

If it's only getting 20% of households, then the public don't want what it's offering, and the public has spoken in terms of its unsustainability.

It's a simple, and I think, uncontroversial idea.

Saying that we all ought to be forced to pay for it, because it's good for society to have it, even if we personally never watch, is much more controversial, IMHO.

You cannot square the circle of mass disinterest in high arts this way (and nor does the BBC actually attempt to).

Deadbeat

bazzyb wrote: »

Because they did have a licence, then they didn't have a licence, then they had a new licence because they did or didn't have one before. The licence was needed because they were watching live TV, then they weren't watching live TV, then they were only watching 10% live TV, then they weren't watching any live TV whatsoever but decided to buy a licence anyway even though they didn't even need one.

That's pretty much a summary of the OP's posts in this thread so far. Clear as mud. Don't expect any further detail as if you ask for clarification you get hit with a torrent of abuse from the OP.

Have an upvote for the clarification. It's all been very confusing so far.

Not_Another_Username

What's an "Upvote"?

Cornucopia

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

What's an "Upvote"?

The "Thanks" button.

Not_Another_Username

Ah! Thanks for that. I would never have guessed.

Not_Another_Username

Back home from the trial and I am pleased to say that my wife's case was thrown out of court. The TVL bod didn't even show his face. He was present but stayed away in another room.

There is so much more I would love to write about today, but I probably shouldn't go into too much detail. I'll just say that it was an enlightening experience, to say the least. The judge was fair and offered good advice. TVL really haven't done themselves any favours.

(Phew!)