Anyone escaped from the BBC licence fee?

Cornucopia

BertTrebormints9876 said:

My unanswered question is what is the definition of a live TV broadcast.At one extreme you can watch live streaming on YouTube of church services and personal video blogs, without a license. At the other extreme you can't watch live streaming from the likes of ITV even if there is no parallel terrestrial broadcast. So when does the personal streaming broadcast become a TV channel. So for instance can you watch the likes of Joe Rogan live? He is much bigger than just an individual streamer but does the class as a TV channel.Or what about daily wire this is quite a big company but only broadcast online do you need licence to view them live

It's become very confusing for the reasons you suggest.   Part of the issue is that the use of the word "live" doesn't come from legislation, but is an invention of the BBC.

When challenged, the BBC Press Office gave an explanation around certain characteristics of broadcasts, which again don't originate in legislation AFAIK, and are very unhelpful for a person who needs to know whether their choice of content requires a Licence or not.

The original definition of what requires a Licence is:  a TV channel broadcasting (in the UK) by terrestrial, satellite or cable TV; OR the concurrently streamed version of those channels; OR BBC TV programs on iPlayer.

I'm more than happy for BBC/TVL to show the legislation changes that support their "new" guidance, but they seem to prefer not to do that.   Without proof that it has changed, I'm inclined to take the UK TV broadcasts as requiring a Licence, and everything else as a grey area, for which individuals can make up their own mind.

I personally watch US Youtube channels, occasionally on a Live stream.   I don't believe they require a TV Licence, and I don't think they meet the BBC/TVL characteristics, although the gap is closing as those channels become larger in their home market.  

edit:  Ultimately, I think it should be like the Highway Code - simple statements of the requirements that can be easily understood by an average member of the public, backed up by references to relevant legislation so that people can dive into the detail if they want to. 

At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds where we have a mix of law and BBC lore, all mixed together in a way that is often confusing and virtually no clear references to law. 

eschaton

I stopped 6 years ago after paying for 18 years. I’ve bought 2 TV’s with the savings. 

I comply with the rules 98% of the time. The 2% isn’t worth £170 or whatever it is now. I pay for YouTube Premium as I use that. 

Gobsh

Its actually a very very clear cut in that the BBC always have, and still fund the terrestrial TV (aerial TV) infrastructure for all channels, but they do not contribute a single penny towards Netflix, ITVX, Channel 4 Streaming, Amazon, etc or any other internet streaming services but they're own, but of course it suits the BBC to call these "Live" services and immorally charge a licence fee for platforms they do not contribute towards, and hence they are now attempting to have BBC licence fee included as a Tax

Vitor

The Youtuber "Black Belt Barrister" has covered this many times. Although the stated requirement for a tv license is to watch a live broadcast whether online or over the air,  the BBC refuse to publish a list of 'broadcasters'. Clearly a TikTok live stream isn't but it serves the BBC/Capita to remain vague about whether Amazon Prime streaming live football, tennis etc. is a 'broadcaster'.

As always if one of Capitas goons is on the doorstep, say nothing and close the door in their face. 

I've not had a license for years, always chuckle at their 'a case has been opened' letters. When at a hotel and turn on the TV, the utter garbage reminds me why I don't have license. 

mta999

Live in this sense does not mean 'as it happens' - you can watch something live for example a football match as it happens, a race as it happens, a play as it happens - in real time but that is not what is meant by live even though it is of course 'live'

In the TVL meaning live means 'at the same time as it is being broadcast' - so you can watch something that was filmed 20 years ago that is in no way 'live' but if you watch it as it is being broadcast then it becomes 'live'

MothballsWallet

Vitor said:

The Youtuber "Black Belt Barrister" has covered this many times. Although the stated requirement for a tv license is to watch a live broadcast whether online or over the air,  the BBC refuse to publish a list of 'broadcasters'. Clearly a TikTok live stream isn't but it serves the BBC/Capita to remain vague about whether Amazon Prime streaming live football, tennis etc. is a 'broadcaster'.

As always if one of Capitas goons is on the doorstep, say nothing and close the door in their face. 

I've not had a license for years, always chuckle at their 'a case has been opened' letters. When at a hotel and turn on the TV, the utter garbage reminds me why I don't have license. 

Speaking of the Black Belt Barrister, he made a video after contacting Capita TV Licensing (or was it Ofcom?) and asking them to provide a list of TV companies registered in the UK.

Their answer? "We can't provide one because the media landscape is always changing", or something like that.

So a defence to Capita TV Licensing could include asking them to show a court which registered TV company was being watched at the time of the alleged event - this is based on a suggestion from Black Belt Barrister, but he does say it's something he would try should he ever be in that position because he's a lawyer, but everyone else should get their own legal advice first.

Cornucopia

MothballsWallet said:

Vitor said:

The Youtuber "Black Belt Barrister" has covered this many times. Although the stated requirement for a tv license is to watch a live broadcast whether online or over the air,  the BBC refuse to publish a list of 'broadcasters'. Clearly a TikTok live stream isn't but it serves the BBC/Capita to remain vague about whether Amazon Prime streaming live football, tennis etc. is a 'broadcaster'.

As always if one of Capitas goons is on the doorstep, say nothing and close the door in their face. 

I've not had a license for years, always chuckle at their 'a case has been opened' letters. When at a hotel and turn on the TV, the utter garbage reminds me why I don't have license. 

Speaking of the Black Belt Barrister, he made a video after contacting Capita TV Licensing (or was it Ofcom?) and asking them to provide a list of TV companies registered in the UK.

Their answer? "We can't provide one because the media landscape is always changing", or something like that.

So a defence to Capita TV Licensing could include asking them to show a court which registered TV company was being watched at the time of the alleged event - this is based on a suggestion from Black Belt Barrister, but he does say it's something he would try should he ever be in that position because he's a lawyer, but everyone else should get their own legal advice first.

It was the BBC (Press Office) - Capita is just the hired hand.   There is such a list on the OFCOM website (presumably BBB chose not to look for it).   But it doesn't necessarily help because it is simply a list of broadcast licences, and some of the companies may have an issued licence, may be publishing content in the UK, but it may not be published under the licence.

Beyond that, BBC possibly don't want to accept the significance of UK broadcast licences, because they hold that any live streamed "TV" from anywhere in the World requires a Licence.

I agree with them that publishing a list of international broadcasters would be impractical, but then without that I don't see how the law as they interpret it can be fairly enforced.  

Nick_C

Gobsh said:

Its actually a very very clear cut in that the BBC always have, and still fund the terrestrial TV (aerial TV) infrastructure for all channels ...

I don't think that is true.  In the early days of commercial TV in the UK, the Independent Television Authority (ITA) had its own transmitters.  The ITA was funded by the Franchise holders.  

Later, the BBC and ITA were encouraged to share transmission facilities.  Roughly half the transmitters were owned by the BBC, and half by the ITA.  Eventually, both networks were sold off to form what is now Arqiva.

I don't think the licence fee ever funded commercial TV.  It certainly doesn't now.    People who choose not to watch live TV or iPlayer are not being subsidised by those who choose to pay the licence fee.  

brewerdave

Listening to Tim Davie earlier this week, the Beeb are getting ever more desperate . Doesn't agree with decriminalisation ,or subscription models or advertising or funding from general taxation - implied that millions of  licence free households are using the BBC services (or watching live channels)....... I'm surprised he didn't outright suggest an enforced household levy to support his "totally" impartial BBC !!
Furthermore there was a "threat" in the press that the Beeb schedules would be full of repeats without more cash .

Nick_C

brewerdave said:

... 
Furthermore there was a "threat" in the press that the Beeb schedules would be full of repeats without more cash .

I thought they already were?  They are certainly full of low quality programming that doesn't meet my expectations of public service broadcasting.