TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

I prefer to base my decision-making on what the law actually says.

And what it says is that a Licence is not required for catch-up TV. The BBC created and designed iPlayer with the full knowledge that that was the Law, and yet they chose to proceed without considering any alternatives.

The present situation is one of their making, and yet again my sympathy for them is limited by that understanding.

cw18

Annie369 wrote: »

because without that there would not be the excellent dramas, documentaries, news, etc, that only the BBC can produce to high standards

Again, a personal opinion.

I've not turned on a BBC channel (live or otherwise) more than a dozen times in the last 20 years, and when I have it's normally been to check out something people are raving about - only to be left very disappointed by it.

And I'm another who doesn't see why people should feel beholden to pay for something the law doesn't require them to have if they only watch on catch-up channels.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

I prefer to base my decision-making on what the law actually says.

And what it says is that a Licence is not required for catch-up TV. The BBC created and designed iPlayer with the full knowledge that that was the Law, and yet they chose to proceed without considering any alternatives.

The present situation is one of their making, and yet again my sympathy for them is limited by that understanding.

I said as much too earlier in the thread... Why pay for something I don't need?

Yes the BBC produce/commission the odd good program but the majority is dross to fill up airtime just like all the other channels...

Simples.

cw18

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Yes the BBC produce/commission the odd good program but the majority is dross to fill up airtime just like all the other channels...

And the problem (in my opinion) is that as things stand at the moment there's nothing to encourage the BBC to change. If Sky or Virgin (or whoever else) only shows stuff you don't like, then you stop using their service and don't pay them a penny. But if you only want to watch stuff on (live) non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC. So the only way people can show them what they think of the service at the moment is to give up ALL live TV shows, and that seems terribly unfair (but still something I decided was worth doing).

daylus

I get the whole idea of not needing to pay if you watch only catch up/on demand. However, I can see no way of doing this using my TV at home. The second I turn the set on, there is a channel being broadcast (even if it is only the mini screen above the TV guide on the Sky box) and it will play for as long as it takes me to select the catch up program I wish to view.

So is this exception only applicable to PC/laptops and mobile devices? Or is there a way to do so with the Sky box?

cw18

Why do you have a Sky box? If you're paying them for a TV package it would be assumed you're watching live TV.

I have no aerial of any kind connected to any of my TVs (or freeview box, which is also my DVD player), so yes it is possible to have a TV and legally not require a licence.

There's no Sky dish or Virgin connection to the house to attract attention either (never wanted the former and can't get the latter as my estate isn't cabled). The aerial I disabled as I cancelled my licence is actually in my loft, so from outside my property there's no apparent way of my receiving live TV. Not sure if this makes it less likely for me to get a visit or not, but I suspect if I had a Sky dish on the wall I'd be more likely to get someone knocking.....

Cornucopia

daylus wrote: »

So is this exception only applicable to PC/laptops and mobile devices?

No, I have a TV (detuned) and a Youview box (no aerial connection). This gives a number of catch-up and video-on-demand services: iPlayer, ITV Player, Demand 5, All 4, UKTV Player (Dave, Yesterday, Really, Drama), Quest OD, and Netflix.

Or is there a way to do so with the Sky box?

Sky isn't really suitable as a platform for not requiring a TV Licence. It's receiving TV broadcasts both to watch and in the background pretty much all the time.

If you are paying for a Sky sub and a TV Licence, then changing to Now TV will save you at least £25 per month (£300 per year). I would suggest Chromecast if you have a suitable phone, tablet or laptop, or a Now TV box otherwise. Other platforms are available.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

No, I have a TV (detuned) and a Youview box (no aerial connection). This gives a number of catch-up and video-on-demand services: iPlayer, ITV Player, Demand 5, All 4, UKTV Player (Dave, Yesterday, Really, Drama), Quest OD, and Netflix.

Also, can't some of the "Smart" TV's be connected to the internet, to display catch-up directly from the net?

Cornucopia

I believe so. Certainly, there's no technical reason why they'd need an aerial connection to support catch-up. (Whereas Sky does require a satellite connection to control access to recording and other box functions).

cw18

Yep. My Smart TV is connected to my router. I've done this so I can use my son's Netflix account, but it does also means I can use iPlayer on it (haven't spotted any other catch-up services, but I haven't been digging for them).