back to article BBC iPlayer to require TV licence

Watching BBC iPlayer may soon be illegal if you do not possess a TV licence if proposals under consideration by the government become law. As it stands, any UK resident viewing a live broadcast - be that on their TV, games console, mobile phone or fondleslab - must pay the annual licence fee of £145.50. But it is not …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. AdamW
    Thumb Down

    BOOOOOO!

  2. Andy Fletcher

    There are really people who don't own TV's?

    Really? Bring on the down thumbs - of course they should pay. You can't get Virgin's catch up without a subscription, nor Sky's.

    Or...the beeb could just launch an ad supported version, which thank Odin I wouldn't have to put up with as I pay my dues. I'm sure AdamW would just love a few extra haircare ads as a restful break in his viewing.

    1. AdamW

      I own a TV connected to a pc, but only watch programs on iplayer (not live) I have never felt the £145 to be good value due to the endless repeats.

      1. Andy Fletcher

        @AdamW

        I didn't say I had a problem with you watching the TV service I pay for for free per se. Simply that you should be subjected to advertisements. What's the problem?

        I'm amazed at your response quite frankly - you're saying you feel it's OK to not pay, because you only like certain bits. I'm assuming when you get liquorice allsorts from Sainsbury's you refuse to pay on the grounds you are not going to eat the blue ones or something?

      2. Chad H.

        So AdamW

        You're more than happy to watch BBC programming, but expect everyone else to pay for it.

        If more folk paid, maybe there would be less repeats... Content isn't free to make Ya'know.

      3. David Neil
        WTF?

        So you only watch repeats by choice, but you don't think you should pay towards that?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ... I can't not pay for license because for one reason or another my household watches broadcast TV, in that sense I don't see why my license fee money should support these non-paying viewers, who are essentially watching the content the license payers are funding. Non paying catch-up viewers are nothing short of 'TV benefit spongers' when painted in that light.

      This has too many similiarities with the Music Biz hanging on to it's outdated distribution model and pricing and the war on piracy, the BBC (and other TV broadcasters) need to start thinking of different pricing and distribution methods. Either throw in advertising and ditch the license fee or offer a reduced fee for watching catch-up services.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I don't see why my license fee money should support these non-paying viewers, who are essentially watching the content the license payers are funding."

        The license fee is required to *receive or record live TV services*. That's ANY live TV services, regardless of medium. That's literally all there is to it. It just so happens that the BBC gets the money.

        As catch up services are not live TV in any sense of the word, the license is not required.

    3. gerryg

      I do not own a TV and I do think that iPlayer should require a TV licence for TV

      With my conspiracy hat on, I thought iPlayer was softening us up for a BBC tax on the internet, eventually "but I don't watch iPlayer" cutting about as much ice as "I only watch ITV"

      Requiring registration, using a TV licence number*, for TV streaming/catch-up would weaken the case for technology bias and DRM. While we all know get_iplayer works it's not supposed to work.

      While I would be willing to buy a radio licence, there isn't one. I wouldn't be too pleased to discover that I lost the right to catch-up on radio.

      *though would it cover roaming when not running off a battery, as the TV licence doesn't but people don't tend to carry a TV around with them.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Yes there are...

      I don't own a TV. I don't have a need to. I will happily support a pay-as-you-watch TV licence that tops out at the annual maximum on those rare occasions that I simply *have* to watch a BBC programme on iPlayer (not live, of course). Ad-supported is also perfectly acceptable, but unfortunately the BBC is not *allowed to*.

      Sadly, knowing UK TV Licencing, Channel 4, ITV, Five and all the other commercial channels will be lumped into the same legislation even though they don't get a penny of the licencing fee.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Only a matter of time

    Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a license fee, if we have one it seems only fair that you need one to watch catchup services as well.

    Isn't there already something about having a computer or a smartphone capable of receiving the 'live' BBC iPlayer streams needing a license, or was that just all BS?

    1. Craigness

      You need a license if you receive broadcasts, not if you are merely capable of receiving them. The equipment does not require a license.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Incorrect

        Actually licencing does say that if you have equipment with the capability of receiving television signals then you need a licence, irrespective of whether you actually use it.

        In the old days if you had a B&W TV and a video recorder you needed a colour licence as the video received and used colour, even though you could only see B&W.

        There is an interesting loophole as items which are battery powered do not require a licence. :)

        Most licence avoidance detection is done by looking for prenises which dont have a licence registered. By law, retailers have to give licencing your name and address when you purchase equipment capable of receiving TV signals.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Sir, you are quite wrong. From the TV licensing website - "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast". Thanks.

        2. g dot assasin
          Stop

          Sneaky...

          "By law, retailers have to give licencing your name and address when you purchase equipment capable of receiving TV signals."

          Bought a new TV from Comet (I needed one quickly!!) got a letter from TV Licensing within 2 days basically saying "pay us £140 now, or we'll fine you £3000"

          How do they know i didnt just buy it to play Xbox on?

          F*ckers

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Facepalm

            Which is why another law to cover iPlayer is stupid

            The law is a hammer. The requirement to license live TV broadcasts is the nut.

            You do the math.

            It is rather irritating.

  4. PaulWizard
    Thumb Down

    What a Jeremy Hunt!

  5. Sketch
    Meh

    Surprised it's taken so long

    Going to be interesting to see how they plan to police it though

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They'll do it the same way they do for TV, they will send round the TV Dectector van with it's bod in the back who's pointing a parabolic microphone at your home, if they can hear a TV broadcast and your not on their database, goodbye telly, hello £1000 fine (or is it £3000, I can't remember).

      Although you'd have to ask the more technical bods that frequent El Reg on whether a parabolic can be defeated by a pair of headphones?

      1. ph0b0s

        @Anonymous Coward

        They will need a better detection method as there are plenty of reasons you would hear TV coming out of a house that is not on the database. Like people who are using netflixs, love film or any of the other streaming services will make it sound like you are watching TV, when you are not anything broadcast. Unless even using these services needs a licence as well, which I would never support.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          They probably listen to the the microphone audio while flicking through the channels on the telly in the van.

          1. ph0b0s

            @AC

            That works fine for detection of people watching live TV, who should be paying. It does nothing about non-live TV as you could be watching anything. Which was the original point of the post above...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @ph0b0s

          That's my point though, they use the dectector vans for basic snooping, anything they aren't sure of when comapring it to their non-registered address database they will just knock on your door and ask to look around, you can obviously refuse, but that means they can then go to the police apply for a warrant to gain access to the premises if they think it's worth it.

          All in all though their policing of the whole system is very basic and still largely relies on the parabolic, database and doorstep enquiries/premises visits.

  6. dotdavid
    Meh

    Account

    Can't they just set up some kind of user account tied to your TV licence. Want to watch iPlayer? You need to log in.

    No law changes necessary.

  7. YP
    Meh

    hmmmm

    This will be great if I can now watch BBC programs whilst working abroad, after all i pay the bloody license fee why I can't I watch it on a computer when abroad?

    It will suck big time if they don't do that and also remove access to radio.

    1. DRendar
      Happy

      You mean like anyone who has a Linux box at home and knows their way around SSH tunnels can? ;-)

  8. Fuzz

    Sounds fair enough to me and potentially far easier to police than any other method of watching BBC content.

  9. craigj

    And yet...

    I can happily listen to BBC radio without a license... doesn't make a lot of sense

    1. Tom Chiverton 1

      No such thing as a Radio Licence though, in the sense of a TV Licence.

  10. Pete the not so great

    Difficult one

    I dislike the compulsory part, but Aunty produces some of the best Telly in the world (though DeadEnders is on the low end of the scale)

  11. Eponymous Cowherd
    Thumb Down

    Does that mean.....

    they will be obliged to make the sodding thing work properly?

  12. Pete 2 Silver badge

    How will they catch people?

    It's difficult to see who is the "criminal" here. If I was suitably fondled-up and lent my slab to "a friend" who happened not to have a TV licence, am I at fault? If so, then by extension does that mean the friend wouldn't be allowed round to my house to watch my TV, too? If it's their fault, then any licence-less passer-by who happens to look over the shoulder of a slab-watcher becomes a crim? Or (worse) does the mere act of owning a mobile-content capable device, but no TV licence, now make you a suspect - irrespective of if you ever wanted to watch mobile TV.

    Either way, given that a lot of iplayer content is watched on the hoof, will we have to have iplayer-police stationed on every street corner, checking the credentials of anyone who happens to be staring at their mobile device while going about their business.

  13. JeffyPooh
    Pint

    So. where can I sign-up?

    I'd probably pay ~$250 a year if I could watch all the BBC TV shows over the Interweb here in Canada. Maybe.

    Then again, maybe I'll investigate those proxy services.

    1. N2

      Jeeze

      Canadian TV must be really bad!

      or have you not seen the exchange rates lately?

  14. Neil Brown

    Pay per view?

    Or charge for bundles (e.g. an entire season / series) or content type (e.g. sport)?

    I do not have a TV, and watch the occasional program via iPlayer catch-up. If I had to pay £145 per year for the privilege, I would not bother - I wouldn't miss it sufficiently to pay that.

    However, if I could pay £10 for a selection of BBC comedy, I'd be tempted - even though, of course, some of that figure would need to go towards subsidising less popular programs.

    However, it would need to be on a log-in basis, rather than charging everyone who has an Internet connection, for that way lies madness.

  15. Steve Foster
    Facepalm

    Obvious Solution...

    ...scrap the Licence Fee altogether, and just fund the BBC out of general taxation. Save paying Crapita a fortune for chasing and criminalising (mostly) single mums.

    Or, as has also been suggested, have a login tied to your licence (which also solves the watching from abroad problem).

    1. Just Thinking

      That would be my preferred solution.

      The TV licence is a ridiculous anachronism from the days when few people owned a TV, those who did were generally wealthy, and the BBC was the only station - it made sense for the viewers to pay.

      A flat rate tax on owning a TV is no longer fair. It is generally the better off who benefit more from it (they are more likely to have more TVs, bigger TVs, internet access) whereas the poorest pensioners quite often have one crap telly and no computer. But it is the pensioner who gets fined if they don't buy a licence, did you ever here of anyone getting fined because they have 5 TVs on one licence? Just as much against the law.

      When you have a public facility which almost everyone in the country uses, the fairest and most efficient system is to pay for it out of general taxation.

      1. Ancient Oracle funkie
        FAIL

        > did you ever here of anyone getting fined because they have 5 TVs on one licence?

        Nope! That's because the licence "... covers the installation and use of TV receivers at the premises specified on the licence." (according to www.tvlicencing.co.uk)

        Don't disgree with the Beeb being funded out of general taxation, except those pesky MP would want to interfere even more

        1. Just Thinking

          Have the rules changed? A licence used to cover up to 4 TVs.

          Can't see how this makes things any fairer. Household with three grown up children, 5 salaries coming in and a TV in every room pays *exactly* the same as a single person who occasionally watches iPlayer on their laptop?

      2. DRendar
        WTF?

        Eh?

        "did you ever here of anyone getting fined because they have 5 TVs on one licence? Just as much against the law."

        Complete drivel - a License covers the address for as many devices as you like, but doesn't cover lodgers rooms, flats in the same building etc.

        Business Licenses cover up to 15 devices. If you they more than 15 devices then you need an additional license for each additional 5 devices.

        Also those bemoaning the plight of the OAPs... Those over 75 get it for free (Although I personally think this should be 65, the same as the bus pass), and those in a care home get it for £7.50

        http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2/

        And by the way - it's HEAR not here.

      3. Nick Thompson

        "did you ever here of anyone getting fined because they have 5 TVs on one licence? Just as much against the law"

        Are you sure about that? My understanding is that a TV licence licences the property, not the TV therefore you can have as many TVs as you like. The only exception is if the proeprty is rented by multiple people with individual tenency agreements. In this case each bedroom is a 'separately occupied place' and requires its own licence (if they have aTV in there of course).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No outrage in that

      Getting rid of the licence fee would make it harder for governments of all hues to ritually beat the BBC with a stick. Nothing fuels daily mail style collective outrage among X-factor watching types like having to put their hand in their pocket - an instant mob full of feral rage to back you up for when you announce plans to so neuter the BBC that they can't savage your particular flavour of cabinet dickhead when they screw up in an arrogant, self serving and deceitful way.

      I'm surprised they don't impose conditions on the licence fee renewal like sacking Humphreys and Paxman - although Auntie has defence in depth in that its dramas are frequently as cutting and pointed as its news programming.

  16. David Austin

    Agree with the license fee or not, this was an obvious step to keep the status quo in the digital, on-demand age.

    The argument of whether there should be a compulsory license fee is, of course, an entirely different (And far more inflammatory) one.

  17. Danny Roberts 1
    Happy

    Good Value

    The BBC is still good value and this won't make any difference to the vast majority that already pay their TV license.

    No other company will send 4 camera teams to the Arctic for 4 months to get the shots needed for something like 'Frozen Planet'. The Beeb may (and hopefully) will make a profit by selling the programme to other networks abroad but I can't see any other production company risking that sort of cash. Most things made by for profit companies seem to appeal to the lowest common denominator and are designed for a quick turnaround and to make some quick cash.

    1. mark l 2 Silver badge

      The commercial arm of the BBC actually makes a fair profit from selling shows like frozen planet to other broadcaster abroad and from DVD sales etc, and also owns half of what UKTV that owns Dave, Eden, GOLD etc.

      I see the main people getting screwed over by the requirement to have a license for the iplayer will be students. I know my ex would watch all her TV on catchup on iplayer, 4od etc as she didn't have a license for live TV in her halls of residence.

      I do use get_iplayer to download shows as the beeb feel that android users should run flash to get the iplayer so its the only way i can get them on my phone as i refuse to install flash on my phone

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. BrownishMonstr
        Thumb Up

        @Mark, I agree with you. As a student, as I have a very tight budget I don't feel it's money well spent to watch one or two shows a week live so tend to watch it on catch up. After graduation, assuming I have a job, I really wouldn't care about the TV license, especially if I was starting to settle down, move out of parent's house, etc.

  18. Smudge@mcr

    How this will work..

    1. Impose a tax on people who only have Iplayer.

    2. Claim there is not enough resource to police the tax.

    3. Put up the BBC Licence fee to cover the "shortfall"

    Or to put it another way: more stealth tax from the criminals in the big yellow building with a giant clock tower on the front.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Do you think that one day this place may be technologically advanced enough for a login at The Register to be known by Hardware ? Or is that asking too much ?

    Why do they still collect this obnoxious tax. The cost of the BBC per individual is surely negligible. Why not save the cost of collection and the chasing up of licence dodgers, and the immoral persecution of those without TV by simply funding it from general taxation and have done with it. No complications, no confusion, just simplicity. Or is that too complicated for those in power to work out for themselves ?

    1. Pete Spicer

      Yes, it is too much, because Hardware is at reghardware.com and The Register is at theregister.co.uk. While there are solutions that can wangle cross-domain cookies, it's a generally poor idea and involves jumping through many hoops to circumvent a security method designed to help your cookies not be stolen.

      Funding it from general taxation would actually be more unfair than the current system; right now it is possible to not own a licence (if you don't own a TV, say) but funding it out of general taxation means everyone pays the same amount, not those who use it pay an amount instead.

      A better solution would be to go with a login. Though, there are several different strands of iPlayer that would need updating (web streaming/Flash player, PC desktop, Wii, iPad... and probably more that I've forgotten)

    2. Gareth Gouldstone
      Happy

      General taxation funding the BBC ...

      ... would make the BBC a state organ, subject to the political whims of the current incumbents. Come the next recession, bye bye Auntie Beeb. At least the licence fee, for all it's faults, maintains a fairly safe distance between broadcaster, state and treasury.

      And without having to have an (often unannounced) advert break every 6 minutes, as is increasingly the case on commercial channels, rendering them unwatchable to anyone except demented gerbils.

      I wonder how long before the advertisers get wise to the fact that PVRs mean no-one needs to watch adverts, so they pull their business, and the commercial channels all collapse.

      1. Sooty

        unnannounced?

        I watch a few things from America, and each break is preceded by a 'coming up after' section, and followed by a 'what happened before the break' reminder.

        Leaving only about 10 mins for actual content in an hour long show!

        1. DRendar
          Meh

          Try watching TV while IN America

          I *felt* like a Demented Gerbil after trying to watch a film... I can't believe that level of advertisement is legal over there... Thank F**k we don't get that much.

          1. Gareth Gouldstone
            Unhappy

            "Thank F**k we don't get that much"

            Yet!

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pay per view BBC is a bad idea. Commercial channels already cater for the stuff popular enough to attract finance. Having the BBC competing is pointless. The BBC is about quality and UK image to the rest of the world, and all sorts of things that doesn't fit into a profit making equation.

  21. Chad H.

    Well

    It seems easy to police (please insert license number to play this video) and prevents people freeloading and thus keeps the overall rate down. Win win - unless you're a freeloader

  22. heyrick Silver badge

    If they go the log-in route...

    ...please consider a monthly sum for ex-pats. I can watch all of BBC, but iPlayer is off limits except for radio stuff. Even non-broadcast material, like "behind the scenes" stuff.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    What a shame...

    ... Capita (or whoever runs TV Licencing on BBC's behalf) gets to harrass people without television reception equipment even more now. Make it simple - implement a PAYW licence that maxes out at the annual licence fee, or ad-based iPlayer for unlicenced users.

    Legislation for this is stupid since it inevitably lumps the commercial broadcasters, who do *not* receive a slice from the licence fee, in with the BBC. Talk about cracking a nut with a hammer.

  24. Will 28

    heaps of internet-enabled set-top boxes

    Surely these will be sitting atop a TV set, as the name suggests, so they'll need a license anyway for that TV set?

    I think they really are actually after people like me who don't have a TV set at all, but use BBC services like the iPlayer catchup and BBC news (those 0.2%). I'd gladly pay this if it wasn't such a hassle to have to remember and actively go and pay for it. As someone else pointed out, with 97% of the population owning a license, about 2% who should own a license but don't, and now 0.2% like me, can't we just say "bad luck" to those other 0.8% and take it out of taxation?

  25. Ben Wilson

    Ex-pat's opinion.

    I've moved to Canada. Here they have a couple of under-funded state state TV stations and a load of commercial channels (5 mins of adverts every 10 mins etc). Unless you've got PVR to weed out the good stuff from the mountains of crap, it's hardly worth having a TV.

    There are a lot of shit things about the UK (which is why I left) but the BBC isn't one of them.

    I would quite happily pay the license fee just to get i-Player, 4-OD etc. It would cost less than subscribing to a cable network and you'd get more decent stuff to watch.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Licence to search my PC

    Will the BBC storm troopers be allowed to look through the PC on inspection?

    Just see it now...

    "Hello madam, we need to look at your PC for the iPlayer otherwise you're going to prison.."

    "humm... What's all these illegally downloaded movies?... And iPlayer".. Obviously!

    1. Chad H.

      Noone has ever been put in prison for not paying their license fee.

      Acting in contempt of court perhaps... But that is a serious crime.

  27. patrick_bateman
    Thumb Down

    I hardly watch live tv, the news is the only live or none repeated thing these days

    why should I pay so more crappy reality shows like strictly are made that I will never watch,

    1. DRendar
      Happy

      Me neither, but I do RECORD live TV so I can FF through the adverts. You need a License if you watch or record live TV. Full Stop, end of story.

      If you genuinely don't watch or record ANY live TV, e.g. if you just have a TV for Playing console games. Then you just have to let the BBC know, and they leave you alone.

      Personally, I'm happy to pay for the BBC - it works out to about £12 a month, for frankly, the best stuff on the telly. (excluding Dead-Enders) and NO Adverts!!

      I pay nearly £50 for my Sky subscription a month AND I still have to watch the Fucking adverts (Well, I don't as like I said previously I just record and FF through them).

      I'd happily pay £100/m to not have to watch adverts... maybe we'll get there... one day.

  28. Nick Gisburne
    Big Brother

    Just make it a tax

    If you have broadband you already have the capability of watching live broadcasts. You're excluded at the moment unless you actually DO watch live broadcasts, but it seems to be heading towards 'if you've got the internet, you have the ability to watch TV programmes, so you need a licence'.

    Surely this is going to make it such that absolutely every household is required to have TV licence, except those which have no TV and no Internet - a tiny number. So if we all have to have one, why isn't it simpler to scrap the licence and pay for the BBC through general taxation? All the malarky about avoiding paying, hiding behind the curtains, detector vans, etc, would be gone. It would be as fair as any other tax - some of your tax money goes to things you personally never use, so the small number with no TV/Internet would have to suck it up.

    Fair enough, if we want the BBC, we pay for it, but the point of the licence seems now to be about making people into criminals. If it became a tax, you couldn't avoid paying. No complicated solutions required, no 'you're in our database' 1984-style ads, no inspecting your devices to see what's on them. No problem.

    1. Andy Fletcher

      Yup, just add it to PAYE

      The office of natioal statistics seems to think there are about 29 million people in employment. The beeb reckon they have 25 million or so license payers. So it's not too far off .It does seem a tad punitive for people not earning to be denied access to quality programming. It also seems a bit of a joke to me that any more than 0.01% of the population can claim they do not watch BBC programs. As has been said, we can all probably name thousands of things taxation subsidises that are of no direct beenfit to us individually.

      1. Tony Smith, Editor, Reg Hardware (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Yup, just add it to PAYE

        If I don't have a telly, why should my tax money go to funding a TV service I don't use?

        You can make a case for funding because it's for the public good if you're talking about the NHS, the cops and the fireservice, but the BBC? Hell, no.

        1. auburnman

          More things than the emergency services need public funding - I rarely use libraries for example but am happy to contribute to their running through taxation. For all her faults in recent years, Auntie Beeb is part of British history. Unfortunately this means it's been around long enough to have some idiosyncrasies that no longer make sense (e.g. Licence fee.)

          That said there's a lot to be said for modernising the licence fee instead of scrapping it by turning it into a login for iPlayer etc, along the lines suggested by other posters. What if your login entitled you to a web based vote on key issues like what sort of entertainment to fund and how much to fund it by?

          Just as an aside, just had a look at the BBC website - Between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011, Spend on BBC TV was £2,351 Million - are you GD kidding me.

        2. Just Thinking

          If taxes were only used for things like the NHS and emergency services, you might have a point. The fact is there are thousands of much more trivial things which my taxes get spent on which I don't personally benefit from, or indeed which I strongly disagree with. There are also some things which I do benefit from which everyone else is subsiding - thank you all for that.

          Set against that, a service such as the BBC, which 99% of us use and which does contribute to the public good (education, relatively impartial political debate) is a prime candidate for funding out of general taxation.

          The 1% or less who never use the BBC must do something else in their spare time, and whatever it is the rest of us are probably funding it one way or another.

        3. Andy Fletcher

          Tony, please tell me you are joking

          You honestly agree with everything your taxes pay for and feel good about contributing to it? You also feel the number of tax payers who view BBC content is a minority? And lastly, you're claiming you don't watch the BEEB yourself (nor anyone in your household). All three of these points may be true, but I seriously doubt any of them are - sorry!

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Licence

    I had a TV licence, even tho my TV is through my PC and i never really watched any broadcasts, i dont often watch iplayer either, but thanks to the BBC selling out and ditching the major thing i consider worth watching, the trully great BBC F1 coverage to sky, ive canceled it. I mean seriously, to remain legal, id need to buy a BBC licence, and a sky sub, then a sky sports sub, an if i wanted to watch it in HD the HD sub as well how the hell is that for my benifit??

    Fair enough, BBC needs to save millions, understand that, so imagin the frustration a few days after the statment stating its going to save millions from F1 when we hear that they have splashed out pretty much the same amount of money saved on F1 on some crap talent/singing contest from the states.

    Wonderful.

    So my answer to this little piece of news? to hell with them, your still not getting my money, an neither is Sky

    1. Chad H.

      Well

      The funny thing is, those car races you like to watch; they cost money. Someone has to pay the cameraman, the computer guys (do you know who's winning) and the annoying announcer guy. Oh, and the racing organisation wants a cut too.

      That money you resent paying... Well that goes to pay for all that. If you don't like paying maybe you should suggest to mr ecclestone and co that they all work for free.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @The funny thing is, those car races you like to watch....

        Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what is happening

        2008 BBC bids for F1 TV rights until 2013

        2010/2011 sees the largest uptake in F1 viewing figures largely down to the BBC coverage, BBC sells its coverage making money around the world

        2011 BBC tells F1 that it can’t finish its contract because it needs to save money

        BBC refuses to sign a joint deal with ITV or Channel 5 because it would compete with BBC viewing figures (and remain free to view)

        BBC signs a deal with Sky, forcing fans who want to watch the whole season to buy multiple subscriptions with sky for a minimum of 1 year on top of the licence fee even though the season is less than a year

        In a perverted twist to the F1 Concord Agreement which states F1 should remain free to watch, BBC and Sky sign a 50% free to view deal

        BBC states it needs to save money an that’s why it’s happening and that this deal is GOOD for the fans

        BBC refuses to deal with any of the questions put forward to it, and all news channels appear to be censored to the BBC SKY F1 deal

        BBC spends the same amount of money saved on another crap talent contest

        You seem to be suggesting that refusing to pay a licence will affect the sport.

        Well in a roundabout way it will, sponsorship is the key, if viewing figures drop, so does the teams income, the sad fact of the matter is the UK is but a drop in the ocean for viewing figures meaning Bernie could care less as long as he gets money.

        But let’s look at this another way

        F1 in the UK will have TV coverage (Bernie happy, teams happy if viewing figures don’t drop)

        BBC gets to back out of F1 and have another crap talent show and keep selling licence fees, (BBC, American talent contest happy)

        SKY gets to milk F1 for all its worth charging multiply subs (Sky very happy)

        Fans get the two fingers from its own publically owned BBC and charged several times more for the right to watch F1 ON TOP of the licence fee how am I supposed to be happy for that? I can’t is the answer so I’m going to protest with my wallet.

        I don’t resent paying my licence, because it is/was significantly better value for money than most of the other crap on the BBC, they say it costs a lot to run F1, an it does, but if you divide that by the amount of viewing hours it’s a lot cheaper per hour than let’s say, some crap talent program.

        Funny thing is, because of the BBC/SKY blanket censorship of the issue, most folk will only find out about this when they can’t watch a race next year.

        1. DRendar
          Headmaster

          I completely agree with you and feel your anguish...

          "Well in a roundabout way it will, sponsorship is the key, if viewing figures drop, so does the teams income, the sad fact of the matter is the UK is but a drop in the ocean for viewing figures meaning Bernie could care less as long as he gets money."

          ...but it's COULDN'T care less, god damn it! ;-)

  30. Oli 1

    Finally!

    Now you can make people sign-up for it with a reference number, so i can finally stop being hassled by the nazi's. oh sorry, i meant tv licensing "enforcement team" and constantly having to prove i have two 40" LCD TV's hooked up to my recording studio PC that cannot recieve live broadcast as the aerial socket has been smashed in so there is no way i could possibly watch live tv!

    Get on with it and opt me out!

  31. GitMeMyShootinIrons

    The unique way they're funded......

    Extortion.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    another solution

    Stop paying the obscene amounts of salary to execs and artists. Its not about paying the rate to keep them, if they want to go fine, there's plenty of young talent in need of a start.

    Hell, I will be the director of the BBC for £100k a year - its £80k more than im getting at the moment and I can live on £20k very easily. There - a few million saved already.

    1. Just Thinking

      You don't even need new talent

      Jonathon Ross was paid 10s of millions of taxpayers money over the years to, basically, host a chat show.

      Now he has left the BBC he has been replaced by ... himself, presenting an identical show on ITV at zero cost to the public purse. The BBC just needs to stick to doing things others don't do well - quality news, documentaries, comedy, current affairs, drama. Let the others do the rest.

  33. Dick Emery
    Black Helicopters

    I told you so

    I knew it wouldn't be long before they tried to pull this one. It will operate like it did before. More letters through the letterbox claiming you MUST be watching TV so MUST pay for a licence. TV detector vans are empty btw. Plenty of photographic proof if you know where to look. They just drive around areas trying to scare people into buying a licence. The antennae on top is just for show. Typical places they hangout at are supermarket car parks.

    It's complete bullshit all of it and another way of trying to introduce a stealth tax that will suffer from function creep requiring an internet tax eventually.

  34. JeevesMkII

    Those bastards

    I have a TV set, which theoretically was capable of receiving broadcast TV, so like a good little boy I pay the TV license fee. However, over the last few years I've been watching ever less TV to the point now where I watch none at all. My plan had been that once all analogue TV was switched off, I could finally stop paying for a service I don't use as long as I never have to buy a new TV set.

    Now those bastards are going to get me for having an internet connection before I can ever stop paying. I think I may have to resign myself to paying this useless tax in perpetuity.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What on earth are you doing throwing £150 a year down the drain? If you don't watch live broadcast TV then you don't need to pay for a licence. The hardware you have in your house is totally irrelevant.

  35. b166er

    Oh please, please, please a PC tax!

    It could cover the TV license and an ECDL course for every licensee.

  36. Mickey Finn
    Big Brother

    Cyril Connolly...

    'ello…

    I'd like to buy a licence for my fish!

    Come again?

    I'd like to buy a licence for my pet fish… Eric… 'es an 'alibut.

    …..

    (Not much of a free and democratic country is it?)

    (Unless "free and democratic" is meant in the North Korean sense of the phrase).

    …. In other news…

    The Metropolitan Police "Service" are using indiscriminate mobile phone eavesdropping systems (bought at our expense) for enforcing the laws (statutes)….

    Don't forget to pay for your "fish licence"…...

  37. Boyracer

    As an ex-pat...

    ...I wouldn't mind paying for a TV license to watch iPlayer in the US.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'Scary' BS for a zombie revenue model, rather appropriate for 'Halloween'.

    1. The BBC is poor value for money, unless you like the tripe which is most of their output, including quite insulting embedded political correctness and propaganda.

    2. The BBC hasn't honoured it's charter terms for many years, so doesn't deserve a penny.

    3. The BBC detector vans are complete BS because viable signal detection was never very practical and would not even be adequate legally proof alone; the only way that they catch people is if they are naive or stupid enough to provide a signed statement that they watched live TV!

    Most TV is a quite mindless and pointless waste of peoples time, given there are far more interesting and productive ways to spend your time. TV is just part of the "Bread and Circuses" to keep us occupied, while our bankrupt civilization declines.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stupid - Why does it need a law?

    The BBC could easily implement a login system that uses the TV licence details.

    (Perhaps even provide an "iplayer lite" using the Black and White licence.)

    New laws are not needed.

    Until a couple of years ago I had a black and white TV (little portable) and a separate home cinema system with a monitor, and no possibility of TV reception.

    However, when they stopped the post office selling licences and moved to paypoint (?) it became difficult to purchase one. (The machines weren't set up for it.) Since I wasn't home much, I unplugged the TV and packed it away, as I realised I'd only watched it for about 5 hours in the previous year, planning to get a new licence in a few months when I would be spending more time at home.

    However the licence authorities sent me such rude letters, I decided to do without TV (other than what I could legally use via iPlayer) and gave the TV away.

    My TV use is not worth £150 a year, but probably is worth £50, which I would be paying but for the difficulty of getting the b/w licence and the rudeness of the licence authority.

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Funding it from general taxation would actually be more unfair than the current system; right now it is possible to not own a licence (if you don't own a TV, say) but funding it out of general taxation means everyone pays the same amount, not those who use it pay an amount instead."

    Ah ok, then by the same logic we all ought not pay into a public kitty for that which is useful for society as a whole but that we personally do not use ? So should I'll look forward for all my rebates in the next post ? That's not the way funding from public funds work. The, "I don't use it", argument is implicitly defeated as soon as one accepts public funding as a requirement for your society. BTW Login does not get rid of the obnoxious tax.

  41. Archie Woodnuts
    WTF?

    I don't own a TV because I don't watch TV. End of. The result of this is that the TV detectorists send me more letters than is sensible and I have to keep telling them to do one. An excellent use of time and money, obviously.

    Surely the simplest method would be to require a login for iPlayer that's linked to your TV license rather than a blanket assumption that "oh, you must be watching iPlayer because, c'mon, who can live without TV?"

    Or am I missing something?

  42. nichobe
    Unhappy

    I am in the 0.2 per cent.

    I own a TV but it is only connected to a PC....

    I never watch anything "live" except non-terrestrial news content which is streamed over the net anyway.

    Very rarely watch BBC iPlayer etc so being forced into paying for a TV license does not appear great value....

    1. Tom 38

      I really don't get this argument.

      You don't really watch TV

      =>

      Not watching TV is going to be pretty easy and won't upset you

      Since it does upset you, the only logical conclusion is that you do watch a bunch of TV, and being forced to pay for it will upset you. My heart bleeds for you.

  43. DaveB

    Its simple

    If you could just go to web site enter your license details, and download a digital certificate allowing you to watch TV the BBC could rid itself of all the geo location stuff as it knows its sending its programmes to a license payer

  44. BoxedSet

    TV license nowadays makes as much sense as the outdated cash cow of a "road fund" license. £145 for the privilege of watching dullard "programmes" such as DeadEnders and its endless cycle of repeats, yawn. Get some adverts on there and some decent stuff rather than tired old rubbish we didn't want to watch the first time round! Pah!

    Fail. A colossal fail.

    1. DRendar
      Stop

      NO!

      Fuck that shit. No Adverts, thanks, I like my sanity.

  45. Simon B
    Mushroom

    Ditch the TV licence, no other channel requires a licence, make them have adverts like every bugger else, sick of the fucking BBC TAX.

  46. Sly
    WTF?

    proud to be a merkin

    wow... having to pay a yearly fee just to watch broadcast TV. I knew the Brits had to pay to use damn near everything... but TV? That's harsh. I'd rather have the crap ton of commercials we have than have to pony up more money just to watch the morning news. The advantage with having commercials is you get a choice... you can mute... you can watch... you can actually buy into the advert if you want... but there's a choice there. Sounds like the UK has no choice to begin with other than TV or no TV.

    1. auburnman

      No TV isn't that bad a choice

      For the price of a year's TV licence the canny bargain hunter can amass a DVD collection that can provide far more entertainment than all the channels put together. And/or subscribe to Netflix etc.

    2. Chad H.

      But the problem with Commercial TV is

      If the program you like doesn't appeal to advertisers; or appeal to a demographic that the advertisers are interested i; then the program goes. In other words it doesn't matter how good quality your program may be if it doesn't appeal to the 16-29 demographic its in trouble.

      With the BBC they are accountable just to us (in theory at least) - the viewers/license holders - not to the admen.

  47. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    License details as a login?

    What if you're on the move with a laptop, so where the license is doesn't match where you are. How do you allow that, and allow multiple devices on one license, but block sharing a license between your neighbours.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wonder how they would implement this though ? Have to create an account, link it to your licence number and then have to log in each time ? I can see that being fun to both implement and use.....

  49. Tim J

    I'm always amazed by the number of people who simply can't get their head around the idea that there are some folk out there who simply don't watch television.

    The magic lantern doesn't feature prominently, or even at all, in the lives of a significant minority of the population.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like