TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

Each to his own taste

precisely.

If I want to watch Sitcoms, I have hundreds of episodes to choose from, and I can watch any episode I choose, whenever I want, which is more than I can do via TV.

cw18

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

precisely.

If I want to watch Sitcoms, I have hundreds of episodes to choose from, and I can watch any episode I choose, whenever I want, which is more than I can do via TV.

And the ability to do that was exactly what finally convinced me to ditch Live TV (and the licence). I get most of mine from Amazon, with a huge percentage of them costing 1p (plus £1.26 postage) - and that price includes some box sets of 3 or 4 films or an entire series of a TV show, although I have paid considerably more for other box sets (but rarely more than £15).

[Deleted User]

Agree with the above posts...

The days of mindlessly sitting in front of scheduled dross is well and truly over. Might be great for the electricity companies, advertisers and the BBC but no me

Being LLF has made what little time we watch TV a far better experience.

Long may it continue.

Cheers

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Old doesn't necessarily mean bad.

I've picked up some brilliant DVDs from Car Boot sales, and pound shops.

I got three of the Brendan Fraser, Mummy films for a pound each, and an excellent "based on a true story" film, called Fatal Love, from Poundland.

I even managed to pick up a Bluray of a horror film, Husk, from the same Poundland.

Also, for £3, I found Season 1 of The Big Bang Theory, brand new and unopened, on a car boot sale.

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

precisely.

If I want to watch Sitcoms, I have hundreds of episodes to choose from, and I can watch any episode I choose, whenever I want, which is more than I can do via TV.

cw18 wrote: »

And the ability to do that was exactly what finally convinced me to ditch Live TV (and the licence). I get most of mine from Amazon, with a huge percentage of them costing 1p (plus £1.26 postage) - and that price includes some box sets of 3 or 4 films or an entire series of a TV show, although I have paid considerably more for other box sets (but rarely more than £15).

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Agree with the above posts...

The days of mindlessly sitting in front of scheduled dross is well and truly over. Might be great for the electricity companies, advertisers and the BBC but no me

Being LLF has made what little time we watch TV a far better experience.

Long may it continue.

Cheers

So can I take it therefore that none of you guys would have any objection to the licence being extended to cover catchup?

HappyMJ

Zapito wrote: »

So can I take it therefore that none of you guys would have any objection to the licence being extended to cover catchup?

I have no objection to the BBC implementing a procedure in which a visitor to the BBC website has to enter a valid TV licence number to view any content on the BBC site.

The TVL money mainly goes to support the BBC so I would have an issue with any change to the law requiring a TVL to watch video being streamed on any other site.

Zapito

HappyMJ wrote: »

I have no objection to the BBC implementing a procedure in which a visitor to the BBC website has to enter a valid TV licence number to view any content on the BBC site.

Yes, I have written to the BBC a couple of times, suggesting exactly that. Also I think I suggested it in the review. And I can't see why they shouldn't be perfectly free to do that anyway, without requiring a change in the law or their charter.

The TVL money mainly goes to support the BBC so I would have an issue with any change to the law requiring a TVL to watch video being streamed on any other site.

Presumably you would also like to see the law changed so that the TVL only covers live TV for which it provides funding.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

So can I take it therefore that none of you guys would have any objection to the licence being extended to cover catchup?

How are you defining catch-up? How would the law define it?

Like HappyMJ, I have no objection to the BBC putting whatever controls or fees it likes on its own iPlayer or other web services.

Beyond that, I think it gets a little tricky. If ITV or C4 want to run a video-on-demand service, funded by advertising, I don't see any pressing need to bring that under the BBC TV Licence. I think that the number of people without Licences who would feel the need to buy one simply because ITV, C4 or C5 catch-up were brought under the Licence fee must be tiny.

I would see any attempt to licence Youtube or Netflix as fundamentally a bad idea, and I can't see that happening. That gives rise to an inherent unfairness where Netflix, Sky and even UKTV (half owned by the BBC) might be gifted commercial advantage over ITV, C4 and C5 by the introduction of the Government proposals.

I've very conscious that the present system is a mess, and I want to see that tidied up, not made worse.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

So can I take it therefore that none of you guys would have any objection to the licence being extended to cover catchup?

Can't speak foor anyone else, but it wouldn't matter to me, provided they didn't extend it to cover Blurays, DVDs, VHS tapes, Youtube etc.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Sheer prejudice on your part then...

I thought I'd have another go at this, as (a) I think it's an interesting question, very pertinent to our times, and (b) I think I possibly came across as a bit more "hard core" in my previous answer than is actually the case.

I'm sure that BBC/TVL staff are probably basically nice people who are kind to children and animals(*). I would be happy to pass the time of day with them, and I would even be interested to discuss their work, as I would value their inside information and perspective.

However, I think it's important to understand that when they call at my home, (a) it is my home (which raises some issues), (b) they are not there with the intention of having a friendly chat, and (c) they are there with specific objectives that have been given to them by the corporate management of BBC/TVL, complete with a questionable set of financial incentives.

Interestingly, it is this question of their intentions that also brings in various questions of law.

So, yes, person-to-person, human-to-human, no issues as such. But they are not engaging with me on that basis. They are there to represent the Corporation that they work for - that is their job. So in effect, it ceases to be human-to-human contact and takes on aspects of human-to-corporation. Even then, I would be prepared to make cautious conversation with them, up to the point where THEY allow the corporate shilling in their back pocket to skew the situation down the line of half-truths, threats, coercion, and legally-questionable behaviour. It is THEIR behaviour in this which is "non-human", it is THEY who have failed to respect my home, my privacy as required by Law, and indeed it is THEY who have breached the principles of common decency between two human beings.

Any failings in that situation are theirs (both the individual and the Corporation). I am an innocent party.


(*) Obviously there are documented cases where TVL staff have broken the Law in connection with their work, or at least demonstrated beyond doubt that they are not nice people... but let's leave those to one side for the time being.

[Deleted User]

Zapito. I believe you asked earlier, how muchh the BBC spends on enforcement.

According to the BBC, it was over £100,000,000 last year.