Dont need a TV licence

Dave.44

KingS6 wrote: »

I notice your first posts were on this thread (non elsewhere and on no other topics). You're a brand new member. You'll get to know the MSE crowd a lot better.

Eventually you'll get to gauge why people are interested in threads without asking them, how cool is that?

Kings6, May I kindly remind you of the forum rules.

Quote:
There's also sometimes a "this is our board" attitude which seems to not want new posters coming in and ruining a pre-established clique.
To be utterly clear - both of these go against the philosophy of this site.

almillar

Not everyone has a laptop - I only ever need to use a computer at home so no point in having a laptop. If I owned a second home I'd probably buy a basic desktop to watch iplayer on but get a case that would accommodate a battery. If anyone were to challenge me on portability I would pick it up and carry it across the room as proof.

I don't make the rules, but I don't think a desktop case, monitor, keyboard and mouse, count as a portable device. I would suggest that if you want to use your computer like this, you DO need a laptop. They're cheap and fast, and get this, you can use them as a desktop too. Just have a look at the cost of this battery you're going to install in your case.

brewerdave

almillar wrote: »

I don't make the rules, but I don't think a desktop case, monitor, keyboard and mouse, count as a portable device. I would suggest that if you want to use your computer like this, you DO need a laptop. They're cheap and fast, and get this, you can use them as a desktop too. Just have a look at the cost of this battery you're going to install in your case.

...will somebody explain to me, how ANYBODY is going to know whether you are watching via battery or mains connection ??:rotfl:
Amongst all the nonsenses re the TVL ,this has to be the silliest:)

boliston

brewerdave wrote: »

...will somebody explain to me, how ANYBODY is going to know whether you are watching via battery or mains connection ??:rotfl:
Amongst all the nonsenses re the TVL ,this has to be the silliest:)

They rely on people voluntarily letting their inspectors into their homes to check.
I have never owned a tv in my life and i remember years ago letting an inspector in to check - however those were the days before they were paid on the number of convictions they get - good luck to anyone who lets an inspector in now!

VisionMan

brewerdave wrote: »

...will somebody explain to me, how ANYBODY is going to know whether you are watching via battery or mains connection ??:rotfl:
Amongst all the nonsenses re the TVL ,this has to be the silliest:)

I agree its silly but think about it. Your device knows if its hard wired or batteried, and displays an icon to say if it is or not.

Mr_Singleton

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

BBC so called owned [STRIKE]Free[/STRIKE]Payview had technology to encrypt its channels. The BBC refused to do this because it would end their regressive TV Tax]

Hit the nail on the head.

Cornucopia

VisionMan wrote: »

I agree its silly but think about it. Your device knows if its hard wired or batteried, and displays an icon to say if it is or not.

It's not really about whether the owner of the equipment knows whether it's operating on batteries or not, but whether TVL do.

Of course, it's all very well there being a handy icon, but "enforcers" are not permitted to "internally" examine the equipment, even with a Warrant.

The truth is that TVL enforcement always was a mess - both legally and practically, and bolting on new rules has not helped. Not only that, but if the Government and the Perry Review had operated diligently, it could have been avoided.

Nilrem

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Hit the nail on the head.

Actually at the time the freeview spec was decided the cost of adding that technology into the receivers would have probably doubled the price of the low end ones, and added significantly to the cost of the higher end models.

At the time the electronics were expensive, and manufacturers were trying to produce low cost standalone receivers by skimping on parts that cost pennies (aerial bypasses for example*), let alone something that would have made the casing far more expensive to make, required a number of additional discrete electrical parts and probably an additional circuit board.

The cost of adding such a unit to TV's was by comparison a much smaller fraction of the cost of the whole (not to mention TV cases were already massively more complex to mold, and the average TV already had 3-5+ boards), and required in some countries.


It would also not have been the BBC's choice to add a card slot so the BBC could go sub, the government decides the funding method for the BBC so unless the government had said that was their wish there was no need to.

The BBC were tasked with getting people onto Digital reception as cheaply, efficiently and widespread as possible (especially after Ondigital went bust), making every receiver have a unit that added significantly to the expense would not have tied in with those requirements.


*I could source the parts for that from a retailer for something like 50p, so a manufacturer buying by the millions probably under 10p.

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

It would also not have been the BBC's choice to add a card slot so the BBC could go sub, the government decides the funding method for the BBC so unless the government had said that was their wish there was no need to.

I don't think anyone is claiming that they did have the option to go subscription THEN. But it is clearly going to become relevant NOW. The BBC's decision (and it was their decision(*)) to drop the card slot from the Freeview spec not only made it a less versatile solution, but also undermines the free choice of options going forward. The BBC should never have been given the responsibility to set the Freeview spec, just as they should never have been given responsibility for Licence enforcement - the reason is the same: conflict of interest.

(*) Greg Dyke has admitted it.

Nilrem

At the time when the BBC were helping decide the basic freeview spec (alongside the commercial operators including from memory Sky) the card slot would have had big cost implications for the boxes.

That was a far more important thing to consider at the time than some theoretical scenario at least 5-15 years in the future when the BBC may go sub.

From memory at the time the BBC's instructions from the government were to make the switch-over as simple, pain free and affordable as possible, adding something that could have added significantly the cost of a basic box wouldn't have gone with those instructions.

IIRC there is nothing stopping freeview compliant boxes and sets having a card slot (my TV is both freeview and has a CAM slot and was bought about 9 years ago...), except that it was a costly addition for standalone boxes, most larger flat screen TV's at the time came with the slot as standard because it was required in other EU countries on certain size sets.

So choice of a specification that could be implemented cheaply, or one that had an expensive addition on the vague idea that sometime within it's operation life it would be required for reception of one of the main broadcasters, despite the fact that no one in government (or opposition) had given any real, serious indications they would fundamentally change the way the broadcaster would be funded or broadcast.

I can't imagine why in such a scenario given the instruction to get the boxes rolled out with minimal cost to consumers that they might have decided not to include it as a required part of the base specification.

The situation may change when the DVT2 switch over happens and we hopefully all go to Mpeg4 or better, but when that happens the price of the inclusion of the card reader will in real terms be a fraction of what it was 14 years ago (and probably be down to the inclusion of a couple of IO lines from a basic card slot to a SOC that does all the reception work, as opposed to multiple components and a a bulky daughter board).