TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

silverwhistle said:

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. ;-)

There is a certain amount of wriggle-room, and the legislation is stupidly complex, but IMV, the term "television programme service" amounts to a linear TV channel that is received via traditional TV broadcast technology (terrestrial, satellite or cable TV), and also includes the concurrent streamed version of such channels.

That's quite a tight definition (although the factors that TVL claim in the video above are very similar in practice).  

To complicate matters, TVL guidance on this used to be very much simpler.   I dug out their pre-2016 information...

 

It's unclear why this was changed, or whether that change reflects a variation in the legislation that is so far hidden to us mere members of the Public.

It's becoming a very topical distinction, though, with the Tyson/Paul Boxing event, and with Talk TV coming off TV broadcast platforms.

wild666

Surely any live content that's exclusive to a streaming service like Amazon or Netflix doesn't require a licence as they don't have a broadcasting licence? 

wild666

I don't have a TV licence but if I wanted to watch something exclusive to a streaming service like Amazon or Netflix, be it sport or otherwise I would watch it. Amazon does live streams of some sports, if there was a sports event on that I wanted to watch then I would watch it live. I don't have any streaming subscriptions as they are getting too expensive, I mean £10.99 to watch Netflix and £8.99 for Amazon those two services alone are more than the monthly price of a TV licence! Add Disney plus and Paramount at £7.99 and £6.99 respectively, subscribing to all those services would cost just under £35 per month. 
I suspect that many who have these services dip in and out of them having one every few months so they can binge watch certain shows they like and not having to wait a week for a new episode.

wild666

Cornucopia said:

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.  

I'd prefer it if the culture media and sports minister at the time said the BBC had to find another way of funding as the licence fee will be no more from 1/1/2028. 
Debt charities sometimes say that the TV licence is an essential bill and has to be paid. If I ever used one of these charities then I would put them straight and tell them it's not an essential bill at all but an optional bill that can be disregarded if I don't want to watch iPlayer or live as shown programs