TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

that figure changes , by who says it


in reality , the figure is one nano second after the show finishes , it is no longer being broadcast "live"

Just to split hairs, I'm wondering how the catchup right is affected by repeats, like when something is first broadcast on Monday, the goes onto catchup, and is then repeated "live" on, say, Thursday. I don't think it then suddenly becomes illegal for non licence holders to watch it on catchup, even at the identical time as the repeat is being broadcast.

The whole catchup thing is nonsense - a loophole. It is obvious that those who claim to only watch catchup still also have to pay the licence fee. They are part of the audience. They use the service and should pay for it just like everyone else. The law certainly needs changing in that respect.

Cornucopia

There needs to be a boundary between what a Licence is required for, and everything else. Where are you suggesting that boundary should be?

You need to think about:-

- Computers/phones/tablets that have the capability to view, but aren't being used that way.

- The "internet of things". As the internet becomes even more pervasive, will I need a TV Licence for my internet fridge or my connected car? What about my smart meter or my connected central heating controller?

- DVDs, Video games (online & offline), CCTV

etc. etc.

The more complicated it gets (and it already is fairly complicated), the greater the justification to scrap it and go to subscription.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't see how yourcomment applies to non-BBCservices.

The licence has always been required for all TV, regardless of provider.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

There needs to be a boundary between what a Licence is required for, and everything else. Where are you suggesting that boundary should be?

Any capability of receiving broadcast media. So TV, computer, tablet, smartphone, etc. Keep it straightforward - basically everyone but an extremely tiny minority who make a choice not to receive any. Everyone else needs to pay.

Then of course, the way that money is spent needs to be carefully monitored and controlled. But that's a whole different debate..

enfield_freddy

Zapito wrote: »

Any capability of receiving broadcast media. So TV, computer, tablet, smartphone, etc. Keep it straightforward - basically everyone but an extremely tiny minority who make a choice not to receive any. Everyone else needs to pay.

Then of course, the way that money is spent needs to be carefully monitored and controlled. But that's a whole different debate..[/QUOTE]




perhaps that debate should start now ?

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

...grumbling about enforcement...

Grumbling doesn't really cover it. There cannot be another organisation that combines incompetence, arrogance, overstepping of authority and lack of accountability in the same epic scale as BBC/TV Licensing.

Which is a good thing. If all our public services were run like TVL we'd be in a dreadful mess.

If it isn't unlawful/illegal for a public authority to mislead the public generally, and specifically about their rights; to drop by unannounced and invite people to demonstrate their innocence of an offence; to fail to supervise staff to the extent that they commit offences both as part of their work and as an adjunct to it... then it damn well should be.

And yes, I have proof of all of this.

I've also raised it with the previous Minister at the DCMS, who like his predecessors is confused and thinks it a matter covered by editoral independence. The numpty's name was Ed Vaizey. I have written again to my MP asking for comment from the new DCMS team, and will be very disappointed if the same nonsense comes back again.

It's a scandal, and I, for one, am happy to be part of an online community (not this one) that is dedicated to its reform. We really need to get it to the stage where it is demonstrably fair and compliant with the Law, and is in a fit state to get the backing of bodies like Liberty, the CAB, the ASA and Crystal Mark.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Any capability of receiving broadcast media. So TV, computer, tablet, smartphone, etc. Keep it straightforward - basically everyone but an extremely tiny minority who make a choice not to receive any. Everyone else needs to pay.

But how would you go about enforcing it? The BBC has already said that it won't bother to enforce against mobile devices because (effectively) it is too hard.

We also need to get away from invading people's homes just to check if they are watching TV, and if so, what they are watching. And whilst I can just about believe in a TV detector for Freeview reception, I'm struggling to imagine anything being able to cope with Internet streaming.

Regulating mobile data (especially in a "locking the door after the horse has bolted" way) is going to be nigh on impossible, too.

At some stage, someone has got to recognise that this is all a nonsense, and that if the best justification for the Licence (not the Fee) is that the Fee funds the BBC, then that isn't a justification at all.

Then of course, the way that money is spent needs to be carefully monitored and controlled. But that's a whole different debate..

You do realise just how secretive and unaccountable the BBC is?

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

The licence has always been required for all TV, regardless of provider.

Yes, I know. But it isn't required by other broadcasters for their funding, though.

Therefore, why is it necessary to bring relatively new services like All4 under the Licence at all? What is the pressing social need to do that? I'm not sure that "to discourage people from watching unlicenceable content (instead of licenceable content)" is a good enough reason. And horse-trading over cuts to BBC funding is certainly not a good enough reason.

And if All4, then why not Netflix or Youtube, which are effectvely the same thing.

I'm making two points, really:

1) That the Licence can no longer be justified.

2) That there must be boundaries on the Licence that are clear, sensible and consistent, that treat all commercial entities fairly and equally, and that are relatively straightforward to enforce in a proportionate way.

I've yet to see convincing arguments on either of those two points.

Disclaimer: I'm a Libertarian, and I will always object to any element of Government that appears to be unnecessary, overly authoritarian or badly run. The BBC, IMHO, is 3 for 3 on those criteria.

enfield_freddy

Cornucopia wrote: »

But how would you go about enforcing it? The BBC has already said that it won't bother to enforce against mobile devices because (effectively) it is too hard.

We also need to get away from invading people's homes just to check if they are watching TV, and if so, what they are watching. And whilst I can just about believe in a TV detector for Freeview reception, I'm struggling to imagine anything being able to cope with Internet streaming.

Regulating mobile data (especially in a "locking the door after the horse has bolted" way) is going to be nigh on impossible, too.

At some stage, someone has got to recognise that this is all a nonsense, and that if the best justification for the Licence (not the Fee) is that the Fee funds the BBC, then that isn't a justification at all.


You do realise just how secretive and unaccountable the BBC is?

there has NEVER been a case submitted to a british court that relied on detector van information

Cornucopia

enfield_freddy wrote: »

there has NEVER been a case submitted to a british court that relied on detector van information

Indeed - and one of the barriers to change is the BBC's failure to address the issue.