TV Licence intimidation

Cornucopia

mrochester said:

Cornucopia said:

mrochester said:

The problem for the BBC is that there is no technical mechanism using the technology that we have (over the air) to stop someone watching the BBC if they haven’t paid.

The current license arrangement means that those who watch it pay and those who don’t, don’t, and that’s largely based on a combination of both honesty and enforcement.  Many European countries have public service broadcasting paid from general taxation which everyone pays regardless of whether you consume those services or not. 

For the OP, the best thing to do is declare that no license is required and then ignore any further correspondence and don’t act upon it. This is one of the side-effects of the BBC funding being on an honour and enforcement basis. 

As always with this topic there is more detail and more history.   

The Freeview standard was modified by the BBC when they took it over from the failed On Digital/ITV Digital services.   They removed the card slot from the standard which had the benefit of making it cheaper, but it was also done to make it harder for technical controls over BBC viewing to be added later.   Other platforms (Satellite, Cable TV) could implement such controls.

The problem is as much ideological as technical, as the BBC believe (and have persuaded many commentators) that the present Licensing system provides universal access to the BBC's services.   This is something of a sleight of hand in that whilst it is technically universal, it isn't legally or financially universal.    Illicit viewing can't really be held up as a benefit of the current system.

The technology now exists to easily control access to BBC TV and Internet services, and that is what needs to be implemented.

Yes the technology now exists to control access. But as a country we need to decide whether the BBC is a public service broadcaster or just another Netflix or Amazon Prime. We need to be careful how we proceed as culturally we have a lot of reach with the BBC; there’s not many Americans who will have heard of Channel 4 or ITV but they almost certainly will know what the BBC is. 

Without wanting to sound too cynical about it, it's easy for international audiences to "know" the BBC when they don't have to pay for it.

Just to add:   On occasions when I've heard Americans commenting on the UK's TV Licence they are bemused (and worse) by the whole concept.   

mrochester

Cornucopia said:

mrochester said:

Cornucopia said:

mrochester said:

The problem for the BBC is that there is no technical mechanism using the technology that we have (over the air) to stop someone watching the BBC if they haven’t paid.

The current license arrangement means that those who watch it pay and those who don’t, don’t, and that’s largely based on a combination of both honesty and enforcement.  Many European countries have public service broadcasting paid from general taxation which everyone pays regardless of whether you consume those services or not. 

For the OP, the best thing to do is declare that no license is required and then ignore any further correspondence and don’t act upon it. This is one of the side-effects of the BBC funding being on an honour and enforcement basis. 

As always with this topic there is more detail and more history.   

The Freeview standard was modified by the BBC when they took it over from the failed On Digital/ITV Digital services.   They removed the card slot from the standard which had the benefit of making it cheaper, but it was also done to make it harder for technical controls over BBC viewing to be added later.   Other platforms (Satellite, Cable TV) could implement such controls.

The problem is as much ideological as technical, as the BBC believe (and have persuaded many commentators) that the present Licensing system provides universal access to the BBC's services.   This is something of a sleight of hand in that whilst it is technically universal, it isn't legally or financially universal.    Illicit viewing can't really be held up as a benefit of the current system.

The technology now exists to easily control access to BBC TV and Internet services, and that is what needs to be implemented.

Yes the technology now exists to control access. But as a country we need to decide whether the BBC is a public service broadcaster or just another Netflix or Amazon Prime. We need to be careful how we proceed as culturally we have a lot of reach with the BBC; there’s not many Americans who will have heard of Channel 4 or ITV but they almost certainly will know what the BBC is. 

Without wanting to sound too cynical about it, it's easy for international audiences to "know" the BBC when they don't have to pay for it.

They do pay for it but it’s via advertising rather than a subscription fee. The same could be said of ITV and Channel 4 but still they are less well known internationally than the BBC. 

cx6

The BBC does a ***lot*** ie they are not just a public service broadcaster. Their budget is huge.

My view is that there should be some basic 'free' public service channels (BBC1, Radio, maybe the News Channel) paid for out of taxation

The rest can go behind a paywall just like Netflix or Sky.

Paywall would include:

• BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBeebies, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts
• BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment), box sets and exclusive content
• BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts
• Other apps and online services like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather
• Other BBC TV channels.