TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

Nilrem wrote: »

IIRC as long as you've only got speakers hooked up to it, it counts as a radio whilst used for radio stations.

You can also use such a setup, to listen to TV audio.

TV_Licencing_Visiting_Procedures_-_Chapter_7 wrote:

2.4 A “Sound Box” - which is used to receive television sound but not the picture, does not require a TV licence.

MiserlyMartin

Nilrem wrote: »

Cornocopia:
It's amazing what you can find with a quick google and a few minutes of reading, if you can get the search terms right (for example "BBC Worldwide Accounts" brings up a lot of figures, fast, and is less than 30 keypresses and four mouse clicks).


Thewise1, if you're interested in a subject, or even just pay attention when it comes up, you tend to pick up on things, and then with the use of the interweb thingy you can often quickly find information you vaguely remember reading
I've lost track of the number of old books and films I've managed to locate using the same method, and it often works out the same for facts and figures..

The attention to detail in your posts, the figures and your amazing knowledge of the BBC accounts at worldwide leads me to believe that you are an employee of the BBC. Whose job is to do PR all over the internet, to seek out and intercept any negative light painted on the BBC in any forum and to promote the BBC's existence and the 'unique way the BBC is funded'. The BBC budget more than allows for an army of such people to do this job.

Either that or you are a geek...

Andy_L

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

The attention to detail in your posts, the figures and your amazing knowledge of the BBC accounts at worldwide leads me to believe that you are an employee of the BBC. Whose job is to do PR all over the internet, to seek out and intercept any negative light painted on the BBC in any forum and to promote the BBC's existence and the 'unique way the BBC is funded'. The BBC budget more than allows for an army of such people to do this job.

Either that or you are a geek...

The latter is most likely. Look at threads on other topics on this site. People who pur their point well frequently back things up with links, other wise it descends into "your wrong, I'm right" shouting

System

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

The attention to detail in your posts, the figures and your amazing knowledge of the BBC accounts at worldwide leads me to believe that you are an employee of the BBC. Whose job is to do PR all over the internet, to seek out and intercept any negative light painted on the BBC in any forum and to promote the BBC's existence and the 'unique way the BBC is funded'. The BBC budget more than allows for an army of such people to do this job.

Either that or you are a geek...

You aren't the only one but they don't get paid for admitting it but are very easy to spot. I've seen him doing the very same at Digitalspy too

I'm just glad I don't fund the BBC and its all legal and above board. It's just a simple case of ignoring all communication with the BBC and they can't set you up for anything

Cornucopia

This is an open forum and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In this case the remarkable thing is that a key piece of information isn't immediately to hand, indeed does not seem to be in the public domain.

I'll ask the BBC how much BBC WW contributes using FOI.

System

Cornucopia wrote: »

In this case the remarkable thing is that a key piece of information isn't immediately to hand, indeed does not seem to be in the public domain.

I'll ask the BBC how much BBC WW contributes using FOI.

The BBC has a habit of refusing FOIs if they threaten their beloved TV Licence. I believe this was one of the reasons they passed questions about the detector vans, they don't exist

Nilrem

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

The attention to detail in your posts, the figures and your amazing knowledge of the BBC accounts at worldwide leads me to believe that you are an employee of the BBC. Whose job is to do PR all over the internet, to seek out and intercept any negative light painted on the BBC in any forum and to promote the BBC's existence and the 'unique way the BBC is funded'. The BBC budget more than allows for an army of such people to do this job.

Either that or you are a geek...

The highlighted one is closer to the truth...(I've never worked for the BBC or any company affiliated with them).

I'm interested in broadcasting, interested in films/TV, and interested in technology
Which means I tend to read up a bit on things related to TV/Film production, and the BBC is a big part of that in the UK.
I also have a tendency to watch/listen to the "making off" and "behind the scenes" stuff, which at times gives a lot of information on things like the cost of producing even basic TV, and how/why even simple things like a fireplace will often be a "visual effect" (because a real fire changes how it looks over time, so the added cost of doing it as an effect counters continuity errors).

Add in a (reasonably well sorted) bookmarks folder that has been growing for over a decade whenever I find something interesting*, throw in a pinch of google.

Then for a final touch add a little scepticism about the claims some of the papers make about the BBC (and pretty much everything else:p), and checking up on their claims and I probably know more than I want to about the BBC;)

That and I tend to try and post links to facts to back up my points**, especially when the information is only a few minutes (or less) of googling away online, and I can learn stuff myself at the same time.


*For example I've got links to things like the sentencing guidelines for magistrates (and some for judges), because I did some fact checking on papers claims that courts were "letting people off", or judges were out of touch, and wanted to learn more about how the system worked (and can now pretty much laugh at how bad the papers are at twisting their reports on sentencing to fit their version of the story).

**I've never quite dropped the "cite your sources where possible" bit that my teachers used to nag me about

Money_Saving_Dude

Apologies if this has been raised earlier in this thread, but I saw Martin's latest email as a significant move. I know my kids tend to use youtube and on-demand far more than live tv. The more they do this the less live tv becomes relevant, and the sooner more and more people *legitimately* don't need a TV licence.

Martin's email goes out to millions of people, so it is an effective means of getting a message out that bypasses the establishment's subtle censorship. (By this I mean the way Capita/TV Licensing deliberately make some of their descriptions vague; see many posts at the beginning of this thread for example about what is and is not a valid setup).

As that number starts to escalate it will surely reach a critical mass that, if they all opt out of the licence fee, will seriously affect the BBC's funding. So what to do at that point?

Do they simply change the rules and say having an Internet connection makes you liable? If you are legally avoiding paying it do they simply make that avenue illegal ('sorry folks, but changing times mean changing the rules...'), and force you to pay again?

I wonder.

System

Nilrem wrote: »

I'm interested in broadcasting, interested in films/TV, and interested in technology
Which means I tend to read up a bit on things related to TV/Film production, and the BBC is a big part of that in the UK.

So is Sky, Virgin Media, BT, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 etc and yet you ignore those and devote your time to defending the BBC. As others have noticed it stands out and is very odd especially if you have no connection to the BBC.

Money_Saving_Dude wrote: »

Martin's email goes out to millions of people, so it is an effective means of getting a message out that bypasses the establishment's subtle censorship. (By this I mean the way Capita/TV Licensing deliberately make some of their descriptions vague; see many posts at the beginning of this thread for example about what is and is not a valid setup).

BBC TV Licensings™ job is to get your money, not help you by being honest. This is why the BBC has so many PR agencies, to keep the public inline.

Money_Saving_Dude wrote: »

Do they simply change the rules and say having an Internet connection makes you liable? If you are legally avoiding paying it do they simply make that avenue illegal ('sorry folks, but changing times mean changing the rules...'), and force you to pay again?

I wonder.

The BBC has chucked hundreds of millions into the Internet side of things over the years and have dropped lots of hints at whats to come.

For instance when the iplayer started they wanted everyone on it and didn't care whether you had a licence or not. Now so many people are using it they ave started to complain........................the BBC Internet Licence is coming!

On another note the BBC has made it easy for people abroad to access it, you just need a UK proxy IP

new_owner

TheWise1 wrote: »

The BBC has chucked hundreds of millions into the Internet side of things over the years and have dropped lots of hints at whats to come.

For instance when the iplayer started they wanted everyone on it and didn't care whether you had a licence or not. Now so many people are using it they ave started to complain........................the BBC Internet Licence is coming!

On another note the BBC has made it easy for people abroad to access it, you just need a UK proxy IP

Is this not moving with the times/tech?

The iplayer never required a tv license until it start(s) on live broadcast.

The BBC will never have a internet license. What they might be looking at is a way to finance the BBC if the license was no more and tv went subscription.

Personally I dont really like the tv license as it feels like the wrong model for the services. but then again I do like the radio/internet services as well as some of the tv programs. However I doubt I would pay if the model was subscription and the BBC know it. They need to hang onto the TV license or it will finish them.