TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

From the TVL website

Make sure you’re legally covered

A TV Licence covers you for:

• All TV channels, like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Dave and international channels
• Pay TV services, like Sky, Virgin Media and BT
• Live TV on streaming services, like YouTube and Amazon Prime Video
• Everything on BBC iPlayer

This includes recording and downloading.
On any device.


Surely the reference to YouTube and Amazon Prime Video is now extended to include Netflix ??

Cornucopia

The reference says "Live TV", which is correct - it refers only to TV.   That would be TV channels on Youtube, like Sky News; and Amazon talks about TV channels amongst its live content.

The problem with the notion of it being all live streaming is that we already know it isn't all live streaming - it definitively doesn't include Parliamentlive.TV (it says so), and TVL have said it doesn't include things like user generated live streams on Youtube and Twitch.   There is also live stream content from radio stations and newspapers that doesn't need a Licence. 

So, the question is then: where is the line?   And we really do need a well-defined line if it means the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law.   And by well-defined I mean a definition that is clear and logical in itself, that makes sense of the range of available content, and that is consistent with the legislation.    We aren't there, yet, and I think TVL's mission is to confuse and complicate things presumably to enhance Licence sales.

Krakkkers

https://youtu.be/WJBViZqplwE?t=538

Cornucopia

Here's the follow-up to the video above, where he talks about the response he received from the BBC Press Office.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDRIaK8DLec

I like Black Belt Barrister's TV Licence videos.  It's been fascinating to watch him slowly come round to the idea that TV Licensing are not the impartial authority that they ought to be (albeit that he has innate lawyerly understatement).

To cut to the chase, I disagree that "television programme service" is a negotiable or subjective term.  In reality, it is a key defined term in the legislation.    Both TVL and BBB are failing in their understanding when they ignore that fact.  

Taking their misunderstanding as a given, a one-off live event on Netflix doesn't seem to meet their definition in that it is not a part of a continuous schedule of live programming.   

The whole thing is a complete mess, and it's a shame that BBB didn't delve into the legislation (as he has done on other law videos) to get at least a contrast between that and the comments from the BBC.

Krakkkers

Needs a test case i guess.

Cornucopia

Krakkkers said:

Needs a test case i guess.

Yes... although it seems extremely unlikely that it'll ever get one.   Given the costs and the depth of the BBC's pockets it simply isn't worth taking them on for the sake of a £170 TV Licence, or even to appeal against a £200 fine.

Krakkkers

I don't watch anything that requires me to have a license but i am concerned at the mention of a "media license" and these mean that everyone must pay even if you don't watch any BBC or live broadcasts, proposals include a levy on broadband contracts or even the council tax with no opportunity to opt out if you don't use the BBC.
We will get a Labour government later this year and you can bet that they will look after the BBC.

Cornucopia

Krakkkers said:

I don't watch anything that requires me to have a license but i am concerned at the mention of a "media license" and these mean that everyone must pay even if you don't watch any BBC or live broadcasts, proposals include a levy on broadband contracts or even the council tax with no opportunity to opt out if you don't use the BBC.
We will get a Labour government later this year and you can bet that they will look after the BBC.

I think there are too many things happening around the BBC and the TV Licence to speculate much about the eventual outcome.   Personally, on balance, I probably want to see the current regime retained after 2027 as it will become more and more unworkable.  

cw18

Cornucopia said:

I think there are too many things happening around the BBC and the TV Licence to speculate much about the eventual outcome.   Personally, on balance, I probably want to see the current regime retained after 2027 as it will become more and more unworkable.  

I'd personally like a dip-in / dip-out subscription like NowTV, Netflix and Disney+
It would save my fella a fortune, as he only pays for a licence in order to be able to watch Dr Who and Children In Need    This way he could just sign up for 2-3 months a year.

BUT I'm worried about how that would work for anyone without internet (such as his Mother).   She has to pay for her licence now, and would then have to pay for the subscription AND a new internet connection which she'd possibly struggle to afford (and I know a few pensioners who would definitely struggle with the added cost) - especially as I've heard rumbles that going to a subscription mode would likely make it more expensive over a year.

silverwhistle

Cornucopia said:

To cut to the chase, I disagree that "television programme service" is a negotiable or subjective term.  In reality, it is a key defined term in the legislation.    Both TVL and BBB are failing in their understanding when they ignore that fact.  

It may not be a subjective term, but coming across it in isolation without reading the defined term explanation it seems a meaningless agglomeration of words. I'll go and read the explanation when I have time and mental alertness! :-)

I've owned my house since the early 80s (fun interest rates!) and have never had (possessed, used, hired,,,) a colour TV so I keep a vague eye on what is going on and an awareness that I can't use iPlayer etc. Even in the 80s there were other things to keep me occupied and since then there has been an explosion of other sources. If there were a radio licence I'd have to buy one. ;-)