Coming Soon.. The PC / TV Licence

[Tsung]

Apparently if you decide to watch the World Cup on your PC and you do not have a TV Licence you are breaking the law!! Source The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/09/internet_tv_licence/)

By the sounds of this, it wont be long until you will need to buy a TV licence if you have a PC connected to the internet. The thinking behind it is this; although you may not actually watch TV on your PC, your PC is capable of receiving live TV and thus... requires a licence.. :(

Crazy, another tax for UK..

[Elbonio]

silly and unenforcable.

[Chicane]

the only forseeable way of enforcing it on existing users, is to trace ip > isp > customer.

new computers sold will have details paassed on using the current method by which tv's are registered.

just enough stealth tax.

*sigh*

[RocketKnight]

Even if they created a list of homes that have a broadband internet connection and cross referenced it with a list of homes that don't have a TV licence, it still wouldn't be enforceable. How would they monitor what you are watching? Tracking that kind of data via IPs would surely be too big a job?

A crazy conspiracy theory guy might suggest in the future we'll have to give proof of a TV license to our broadband providers in order to access certain content. So that way theres no tracking of data per customer as such, simply cutting off customers who shouldn't be watching certain content before they get a chance. But I don't have a tin foil hat handy so I won't say it.

[Chicane]

nah i meant when watching tv streamed from the bbc, its consievable that they can track you down. Although i dont know if they can legitimately go up to an isp and ask for user details.

thinking about it if it is the law, and you break it by watching tv then i assume they can get the info.

:/

like for instance music downloads from the BPAA or whatever its called.

[RocketKnight]

Heh my comments weren't actually about what you said, just about the topic. We posted at the same time. :)

[Tsung]

They do not need to prove you are watching something. It's the same with T.V.s even if you have one just for your PS2, they will still try to have you.

What bugs me is this... The UK TV licence holders pays for the BBC but the World benefits from it (by being able to access bbc.co.uk from foriegn coutries).

[Cabe]

The UK TV licence holders pays for the BBC but the World benefits from it (by being able to access bbc.co.uk from foriegn coutries).

I beleive they blocked some countries for the olympics, due to quibbles over the franchises. I suspect they will do the same this time round. It's easy to do when you have a captive player like they do.

[Afty]

Personally I'm proud of the BBC and the service provides. It is one of the best and least partisan news agencies in the world - and the benefits it brings to the world as a whole, I am more than happy to pay for - ignoring the fact that the BBC makes a huge portion of its' revenue from licensing content abroad.

The BBC is good, and I'm happy to pay - and if most of the content will be provided online there needs to be a way for them to recoup the costs of creating and distributing the content... if that's a "PC Content License" then so be it, as long as it is costed reasonably (like the TV license).

[Chicane]

i treat the bbc world service thing like the aid we give to poorer countries.

[Elbonio]

The licence fee covers BBCi as it is


You can't stop people from getting on to it, but at least it's there for the licence payers to use it.

I agree with you Afty that the BBC is worth paying for and I will always stand by that, but we already are in the licnece fee - for TV, Radio and BBCi.


Another charge on top of that I would disagree with. And obviously the knee jerk reaction of PC = tv licence is just stupid.

[KingDaveRa]

I agree with afty. The BBC is worth the money. I think it's fair enough that if you wanna use their t'internet services, and have no licence that you should pay.

[gabes]

Whats the issue? It's not like they are charging you twice.

Grow up.

[Steadders]

sheesh...sorry for having a discussion.

[her0n]

And what would you say to those being charged who owned pc's but didnt own a tv hmm? It's an interesting thread, people aren't flaming, perhaps you should construct a better response and then come back and tell people to 'grow up' ¬_¬

[Afty]

It's all speculation, but perhaps three licenses:

TV License
Internet Content License
Combined License (costing only marginally more than the most expensive of the above).

[Joey]

this isn't going to affect the majority of people tbh - how many households are there with a broadband internet connection but no tv?

[Elbonio]

the licence fee is worth paying for BBC news 24 alone

As such i'll always be buying one.

But I object to having to pay for an additional one for online content. It's included in the current licence.

[Neon]

This seems ludicrous to me. Id rather be cut off from the internet services and "pay-as-you-go" to use them rather than paying on top of my isp monthly fees for services that i might not even be interested in or even use.

If you own a tv then no problem, but noone seems to have considered that people might own a pc and not have a tv and for these people it seems that you are just saying "give me money because i say so" which seems wrong, its almost an invasion of civil liberty.

For familes on a lower income increasing the cost of monthly bills just seems silly. I can't help but feel that sometimes the BBC overestimate their position somewhat. Now, don't get me wrong, i like the BBC and do agree that it is worth the money (despite the cheif of the bbc being a political appointment). But for those who can't afford or who have no intention of using BBC services online this seems a blanket solution which will cause as many, if not more, negative effects rather than positive. Surely the BBC earn enough money already? Or is this more about them getting upset that people are accessing their content and OMFG not paying for it! The *&£^"$*"! Perhaps its more about interlecutual property?

Maybe even some form of BBC stream site, where you enter your TV License number to access the content or something might be more appropriate. Although we dont know how much they have investigated a technological solution rather than just making the public pay more.

Its certainly an interesting issue and one that has been debated a lot over the years, and i think its a good discussion to have as it will have a profound effect on the progression and use of PC technology in the future. Will we approach a stage where they end up shooting themselves in the foot with charges and control? Will we ever reach that utopian freedom of data state? Who knows :)

..just an after thought, i find it interesting that the tv licensing department will prosecute, but there is no mention of BBC involvment, nor that the BBC will restrict people watching or try to stop them. Its more like, oh yeah we dont care, you can watch, but we will nab you for it! ;)

[Guigsy]

If they put it on the site for free they obviously want you to look at it. They cant suddenly go "oh by the way you have to pay for this" and leave it free for viewing...
Its like leaving bits of cheese on sticks on a table in the supermarket... people will take them... you dont then expect to be escorted out of the place by security because you havent payed for something that appears free :)

They would have to totaly change the lisence fee works. but i think its a bad idea if u ask me. the logistics of tracking things like this seems stupid. :as-slow:

[Georgecooldude]

Apparently if you decide to watch the World Cup on your PC and you do not have a TV Licence you are breaking the law!! Source The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/09/internet_tv_licence/)

By the sounds of this, it wont be long until you will need to buy a TV licence if you have a PC connected to the internet. The thinking behind it is this; although you may not actually watch TV on your PC, your PC is capable of receiving live TV and thus... requires a licence.. :(

Crazy, another tax for UK..

So I assume anyone logging onto BBC news at work also should get a license? This is stupid. BBC sucks. Make them use advertising like the other channels. All of BBCs content is total balls anyway

[Afty]

If they put it on the site for free they obviously want you to look at it. They cant suddenly go "oh by the way you have to pay for this" and leave it free for viewing...You have completely missed how the BBC works, and why.

The BBC broadcast (distribute) news free of commercial interests. This is an incredibly vital and necessary component of a free society. Admirably, the BBC also manage to stay (mostly) free from governmental meddling too.
In order to do this, it must raise funds in a different manner to a standard commercial operation, and levying a toll (charge/tax whatever) on to each citizen (household) of the country able to receive the information is the best way to do this, regardless of whether the delivery is via radio waves, antenna and light gun, or via TCP/IP, html and wavelets.

[bvark]

The argument that a public service broadcaster should exist is very different from the argument about the best way to fund them - don't confuse the two.

Especially, the argument that the best way to fund a necessary degree of independent media is through a flat tax on TV usage looks difficult to defend - care to point out why all of the other models in the world are inferior?

[catbeef]

you can watch a lot of bbc programmes on the internet for free....

i don't see the point in tv licnese if you never watch bbc. they have a ****ing ace card here.

[Frag-O-Byte]

i dont watch bbc.. personaly i dont even check their website unles sone of you guys post a link..

but.. id sooner pay no taxes and pay as i go...

like for every mile i use on the road id pay a fixed price..

every channel i watch id pay a fixed price to that channel for how many hours i watch it..

if i wanted news i would pay a news souce a fee to see the daily news.. (not like im botherd)

ect.. like i pay for what gas i use, water.. petrol.. electric.. ect.. u understand?

i hate having to pay out for stuff im not using just because there is something in my house that is capable of reciving that thing.. its total bollox.. they need to think about this for future other wise nobody will have anything as taxes are taking tooo much of our money + house prices and raising pole tax ect..

would you pay £30 a month for say 3mb BB and only use 1mb, but you can get a 1mb package for £10? dont say you might use it in the future because if you do then you can upgrade.. understand?


also forgot to add....


1 BBC programs are crap half of the time and they have nothing that interests me that much

2 they dont get movies ands tuff the same time as other networks get them they get em like 2yrs after they are released by then iv watched them on sky 4 times over and got it on dvd.. why would i like to watch it again?

[LozB]

how about when analogue signal gets stopped and we all move to digital, the license cost inherently goes up. The cost for the license then being for digital transmission would cover u for internet TV etc? hows that for fair? i probably watch 2 hours TV a week, so im not getting much value out of my license, i do however listen to a lot of BBC radio. So i figure im getting the balance there and it breaks even.. stop winging, if u dont wanna watch then either payup (if it happens) or wait until they can catch u.. How many people have the detuned TV? for ps2 etc ? none i know?

[Freelance]

i do like the BBC, but this seems a nice blanket way of getting money. even though this is probably just one of the zillion ideas for funding the beeb that gets thrown about every now and then. having a tv/internet/bbc licence just because you use the internet seems to me that they're making the assumption "i'm using the internet in the uk, therefore i'm using the bbc services", all the bits coming down the pipe can be many things from many sources

personally i would prefer a "bbc internet subscription"

[Frag-O-Byte]

i only listen to radio 1 in the weekdays morning on the way to work (not all the time) 7am-10am thats the only time other wise it all crap.

[Chicane]

im cancelling my tv licence when i get my own place, i just dont watch enough to justify it. yes i listen to the radio, but paying £44 even for a mono one just doesnt appeal.

although i would miss bbc news. but thats what the webby's for :)

[Frag-O-Byte]

but your pc is able to recive radio from BBC and also can recive Feeds from BBC .. there they have u thats another £5 per week

[Afty]

The argument that a public service broadcaster should exist is very different from the argument about the best way to fund them - don't confuse the two.

Especially, the argument that the best way to fund a necessary degree of independent media is through a flat tax on TV usage looks difficult to defend - care to point out why all of the other models in the world are inferior?I didn't deliberately attempt to conflate the two arguments, though I do suspect they are so closely linked as to be impossible to discuss separately with any degree of relevance.

Second, I didn't say a single word about "other models in the world" - with the exception of the for-profit entertainment/news organisations which exist both here and abroad.

[Georgecooldude]

You guys do release the BBCs annual budgey from license payers is £3.5 billion!

BBC sucks big time! Make it advert funded like the other good channels.

[Minidisk]

You guys do release the BBCs annual budgey from license payers is £3.5 billion!

BBC sucks big time! Make it advert funded like the other good channels.



**** THAT


Adverts are ****, Utter ****, Id rather pay more then have every single program or film filled with adverts every 10 mins, sky ones the worst for it ;/

[Chicane]

they'll never stop you from using the website, they might use your license number for access to tv content, ie you'll have to reg up with the beeb, and they might lockdown you licence number to an ip.

but one day i'd like to see a tv, that cannot receive content from the BBC, that way you can watch tv without pay a licence...

come to think of that, why hasnt anyone done it? - i suppose it would be easy to hack?

[Neon]

Well looking at the US model, there are no real channels that are free to air. If you want tv you pay a cable or satellite. I agree with most comments here, that a blanket tax doesnt seem the best solution.

[bvark]

Second, I didn't say a single word about "other models in the world" - with the exception of the for-profit entertainment/news organisations which exist both here and abroad.

But you did say that the best way to fund a public service broadcaster is a flat tax on anyone with a TV:

In order to do this, it must raise funds in a different manner to a standard commercial operation, and levying a toll (charge/tax whatever) on to each citizen (household) of the country able to receive the information is the best way to do this

Why's this better than just funding public service broadcasting with a lump sum from general taxation (a la PBS in the US)?

The cost of administering a licensing scheme (5.2% of the fee in 2005, or £153M), is inefficient (and regressive) in comparison to funding the BBC via 1.1p on basic income tax (~£2.78bn in 2005).

Surely you can't be arguing that this ring-fencing provides good value for money for political independence reasons following the removal of Greg Dyke and the general climate of political interference from previous Culture Secretaries right back to the 60s.

[Afty]

By levying the population directly, you achieve two things:

1] You provide people with the ability to "opt out" (to a limited degree) if they don't want to receive the content.
2] The income tax increase might be one way to achieve this more efficiently, but I would be dead set against a "lump sum" system like the US, which leaves the level of funding at the mercy of the current regime.

[Jez_Gafys]

just take it too far..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/13/tv_licence_mobile/

[Chicane]

by reading this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5074406.stm

it seems they are already capable of tracking people back to where they work...

its a very short step to consumers :/

[TheDon]

by reading this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5074406.stm

it seems they are already capable of tracking people back to where they work...

its a very short step to consumers :/

That article doesn't say that at all.

It says that they know which companies have a TV license, and which don't, so they know which ones to go round to to check if they are watching the matches online.

It doesn't say they can tell who's watching the games. It's just pointing out they have a full list of everyone that has a tv license so it's not hard for them to make a few educated guesses and go knocking on doors of companies who are likely to have peole streaming the matches.

[Jez_Gafys]

That article doesn't say that at all.

It says that they know which companies have a TV license, and which don't, so they know which ones to go round to to check if they are watching the matches online.




But if you read theregister article is says

"TV Licensing also told OUT-LAW that it did not know what proportion of UK businesses hold a TV licence"

[TheDon]

What proportion is different to who has.
They know who has one, they don't know how many businesses there are in the UK, therefore they don't know what proportion have one.

It's most likely a misquote with the reporter asking what proportion don't have one, the licensing guy saying they didn't know and it being misinterpreted as them not knowing who does and who doesn't. They definitely DO know which businesses have them, which is all that is required for them to start knocking on some high profile businesses doors that don't.

[eleni]

they cant even track people down for the tv license so i doubt they can cope with charging for the net stuff as well. i keep getting letters telling me to pay up for my license. the reason that i havnt is because a) i dont have a tv b) if i did i still wouldnt get signal

[UberMonkey]

a) i dont have a tv b) if i did i still wouldnt get signal


...where exactly do you live? :icon24:

[Frag-O-Byte]

they cant even track people down for the tv license so i doubt they can cope with charging for the net stuff as well. i keep getting letters telling me to pay up for my license. the reason that i havnt is because a) i dont have a tv b) if i did i still wouldnt get signal


your my new idol

[eleni]

...where exactly do you live? :icon24:

the arse end of kent. ive never tried to get tv but alot of people in my flats were driven mad by it. only half the building can get signal and thats with reception boosting gadgets.

[Squeeb]

rtspproxy ..
..
What then? :P