Fraxinus, If you have not cleared history and or cookies since telling them 'yes' it is possible the info that you have a license is still there, meaning they do not have to ask each time.....just guessing.
D.B.
D.B.
TV Licence and iPlayer
- Thread starter Mesquite
- Start date
Just pay it please.
And loosen that collar!
[video=youtube;qmRuLpexQRY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRuLpexQRY[/video]
K
And loosen that collar!
[video=youtube;qmRuLpexQRY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRuLpexQRY[/video]
K
I think not using a pin number for the BBC Iplayer is that this would then give you the option, and once it done that, it could be argued that those who have not opted to use the Iplayer, or those who cannot use the Iplayer, are not getting the same value as those who did, and therefore they should pay a reduced licence fee (and lets face it, if you havent got broadband you cant use Iplayer, correct me if I am wrong), so those people who are living in an area with bad reception for terrestial tv signals, and bad or no broadband, are really getting fleeced.
As Drain Bamaged points out, its just that its a prompt, probably caused by cookies, although it does ask me when I log on from my Now TV box, which is fine.
No, they are not monitoring your internet traffic - in fact they are going to be doing nothing more than just checking the licence fee database, and sending you a letter in the usual way. They do have certain powers, but matching IP address to licence fee records would be perfectly possible, but they have no plans to do. As for a pin number, that would require a large scale rewrite of a lot of software on existing equipment, not all of which might take it. And would bring the BBC a lot closer than it would like to the suggestion of subscription TV.
At the moment, the Iplayer asking you 'do you have a licence'? is a bit like Father Ted and Dougal standing outside the cinema showing 'The Passion of St Tibulus' and saying 'down with this sort of thing' and 'Careful now'. Or more 'it would be really nice if ', in a BBC accent.
BTW - made an error earlier - the total BBC spend on in front of camera talent was £188m, not £148m.
Couldn't they just use Freesat? And not worry about Iplayer, or any other on-demand service.
No, they are not monitoring your internet traffic - in fact they are going to be doing nothing more than just checking the licence fee database, and sending you a letter in the usual way. They do have certain powers, but matching IP address to licence fee records would be perfectly possible, but they have no plans to do. As for a pin number, that would require a large scale rewrite of a lot of software on existing equipment, not all of which might take it. And would bring the BBC a lot closer than it would like to the suggestion of subscription TV.
At the moment, the Iplayer asking you 'do you have a licence'? is a bit like Father Ted and Dougal standing outside the cinema showing 'The Passion of St Tibulus' and saying 'down with this sort of thing' and 'Careful now'. Or more 'it would be really nice if ', in a BBC accent.
BTW - made an error earlier - the total BBC spend on in front of camera talent was £188m, not £148m.
Couldn't they just use Freesat? And not worry about Iplayer, or any other on-demand service.
Father Ted? Nah, more like the Inner Party espousing 'War is Peace', 'Freedom is Slavery' or 'Ignorance is Strength'. Careful what you say or do because you know who is watching
Old Bones said:
Blimey... but what about their value for money Old Bones? How does that effect the numbers? Are they getting the same great deal as the rest of us proles?
If someone is on a Light transmitter, then Freesat makes great sense - they'll get pretty much all channels, including all the BBC ones in HD. They can even chose multiple regional news. So yes, they get a pretty good deal. As for broadband, thats not the BBC's fault.
So the BBC can't guarantee broadband for every license payer, why include the iPlayer in with the license fee? Why should a commercial service such as FreeSat pick up the slack... so the question remains, why not have another type of license? We have a B&W license... how many people genuinely own a B&W telly these days? So why not a 'We Cannae Git Na Stinkin Bradban Ya Wee Bazzas' license for those with intermittent or no signal to receive the iPlayer?
I am really amazed by your insight into the workings of the BBC, OLD BONES, I am beginning to suspect you maybe the DG of the BBC, and at £450k pa, you could probably sit there all day pontificating about relevant points that are brought up by the BBC.s customers, and at least you would know that your second in command who is poorly paid(sic) at £350k pa, will cover for you, its been quite plain for many years that the cost of a TV licence has been exhorbitant, even the Government are aware of this and have forced the BBC to make cuts in order so the licence does not increase in price. If anybody want to really know what the BBC is all about I suggest they go to their website and have a look at the complaints they have received, and you will find that all or most are totally ignored by them, to make matters worse, the complainants who further complain to the BBC trust, basically get told its nothing to do with them. As for your remark about people in poor reception areas to go and get freesat, I just think this shows your contempt and lack of understanding.
Or worse still maybe you work for Capita.
Or worse still maybe you work for Capita.
I actually was accused of working for the BBC on another forum. The person could not understand that I somehow could come up with actual data, other than be a BBC mole. In reality, I dont. I just take an interest in the technology (which I sell) and the background, like research, and like facts, not just opinion. And since I've seen all these arguments before, I'm familiar with the figures. The BBC isn't perfect and I've complained when I think they've done a poor job. But overall, it works.
its the cheapest in real terms since the nineteen seventies (when there were just three channels, and BBC2 was only on for about 5 hours a day), and its been frozen (by government order) for the past five years, even though the government has also loaded it with lots of extra costs. And we get more services than ever before, as this graphic shows:
https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052165/Does_the_BBC_or_BSkyB_spend_more_on_programmes
And of course we have far more channels in general to watch, many of them in HD - and in a couple of years hopefully, they will all be that way.
If someone cannot get a terrestial signal at all, or a relatively poor one because of local geography or at least a relatively limited servive from a Light transmitter, what are they supposed to do? Telepathy?
But by using a satellite system, like Freesat (which has no subscription and has been around for at least 9 years), they can access pretty much all the channels on Freeview, plus some that are not available on Freeview at all. A fair number of my customers are swapping out their Sky boxes for a Freesat box (normally from Humax), because they realise that they really don't require the extra channels that Sky supplies (and charges for). And now LG, Samsung UHD and certain panasonics have them as standard, while Sony's still have a gebneric sta. tuner, so the signal isn't that hard to get.
Or am I understanding wrong?
its the cheapest in real terms since the nineteen seventies (when there were just three channels, and BBC2 was only on for about 5 hours a day), and its been frozen (by government order) for the past five years, even though the government has also loaded it with lots of extra costs. And we get more services than ever before, as this graphic shows:
https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052165/Does_the_BBC_or_BSkyB_spend_more_on_programmes
And of course we have far more channels in general to watch, many of them in HD - and in a couple of years hopefully, they will all be that way.
If someone cannot get a terrestial signal at all, or a relatively poor one because of local geography or at least a relatively limited servive from a Light transmitter, what are they supposed to do? Telepathy?
But by using a satellite system, like Freesat (which has no subscription and has been around for at least 9 years), they can access pretty much all the channels on Freeview, plus some that are not available on Freeview at all. A fair number of my customers are swapping out their Sky boxes for a Freesat box (normally from Humax), because they realise that they really don't require the extra channels that Sky supplies (and charges for). And now LG, Samsung UHD and certain panasonics have them as standard, while Sony's still have a gebneric sta. tuner, so the signal isn't that hard to get.
Or am I understanding wrong?
Last edited:
Seeing as you sell the technology, I can now see why you support the BBC vehemently, I would advise that you try to take an impartial stance regarding your facts, Its alright comparing the cost now to 20 years ago, but you are forgetting certain other costs which make it far more expensive today than 1970's, 40 years ago (based on you two comparison charts) there was no advertising, you have already said it now costs 13.2p per day to watch TV, above the cost of the licence fee. everyone had to buy a new TV when it switched to digital(except those who simplu bought a gizmo to convert the signal, still a cost), and as many of the quoted services in your charts show, you need broadband to view or use them, ( which adds at least £250 pa to the cost, assuming Phone rental and broadband cost), so to say it is cheaper today than 20 years ago, is not quite true, now you must admit that.
I personally have no trouble paying my licence fee, but what I do not like is seeing private companies like Capita, Paystation, getting paid for a job that the BBC , and the Government should do in controlling and collecting the licence fee, remember it was this Government that stopped the Post Office issuing Licences, I would like to know what Capita receive for this service, as well as the amount of lost revenue paid to Paystation.
I personally have no trouble paying my licence fee, but what I do not like is seeing private companies like Capita, Paystation, getting paid for a job that the BBC , and the Government should do in controlling and collecting the licence fee, remember it was this Government that stopped the Post Office issuing Licences, I would like to know what Capita receive for this service, as well as the amount of lost revenue paid to Paystation.
I suspect the problem is your research and facts are all very one sided. You ignore the 3,500 individuals going through the court system every week thanks to the enforced by law license fee. You ignore the facts relating to the bullying tactics used by the BBC to collect their monies. And you rally call the myth of the BBC being good value for money. I won't repeat what I've said before, but the short version... if you're forced to buy something, that isn't good value.
Old Bones said:its the cheapest in real terms since the nineteen seventies (when there were just three channels, and BBC2 was only on for about 5 hours a day), and its been frozen (by government order) for the past five years, even though the government has also loaded it with lots of extra costs. And we get more services than ever before, as this graphic shows:
https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052165/Does_the_BBC_or_BSkyB_spend_more_on_programmes
And of course we have far more channels in general to watch, many of them in HD - and in a couple of years hopefully, they will all be that way.
Oh my... you really don't understand do you? The cheapest is having no TV license at all... you then pay nothing directly for owning a television. Zero. Nadda. Zilch. The companies paying for advertising will not make their products cheaper if they don't have to pay for advertising because they are paying the market price. I realise this must be hard for you to understand, simply because you keep repeating the same rubbish after that has already been pointed out, but commercial television costs us more in tea bags than anything else because we use the advert breaks to make a brew.Old Bones said:
Get a discount on their enforced by law license fee? Go outside and smell the flowers? Learn to juggle?
Old Bones said:
Who pays for the satellites though? How is FreeSat free? How the devil does all this come about to give people these amazing options?
Old Bones said:
Oh my, yes... your understanding on this issue is so far from reality you're having adventures in Narnia! After rereading your evidence, it is all based on the premise that the TV license is necessary and that services such as FreeSat don't exist, but then you recommend FreeSat to those who can't get the BBC. It is mind-boggling how wrong your understanding is... but then blimey, I'm 'fighting' with you when I should be contacting my MP.... because as we all know, the best way to get things done is to shove it to 650+ idiots who couldn't organise an inebriation event in a building dedicated to ethanol.
I personally don't think you work for the BBC Old Bones, but I would love to know your views on so many issues. I genuinely love hearing different opinions, and I love debating opinions... its only spoiled when its decided that one side is to be vilified for their opinion.
Generally about the license. It will end. There will be a point where the BBC can no longer justify it to the House of Lords, because make no mistake, the only reason we still have the license fee is the House of Lords. Even the idiots in the HoP know the license fee is a joke, they know it is no longer justifiable to back it up with the threat of jail. They know we're moving forward and they know that either the BBC evolves, or it disappears.
You've forfeited your argument, proceed to the nearest exit.
Edit... such is the seriousness of your crime, my browser posted it twice!!
No, I think he's still within the bounds of forum rules! Suggesting which political Party might best serve your preferred agenda in this debate is the avenue to avoid as that most certainly leads to the exit and clanging of padlock & chain.
K
K
K
K
Blimey, lesson learned here, never link to newspapers. I wasn't aware I had to ignore certain news outlets... but I am aware now. Won't happen again.
If fighting/debating or however you want to frame it that suits your point is pointless, why have a discussion forum in the first instance? Are you intending on advising Old Bones as well, or is your advice just reserved for the people you disagree with?
Any discussion can change into a debate just by two people having different views, and that seems perfectly acceptable to most, but for some reason my involvement is wrong and I shouldn't continue to discuss it here, instead contact an MP? How bizarre... but okay... I presume if there are any other discussions that include a disagreement, you'll be stepping in? Look forward to seeing that.
What's this got to do with the TV license again?
Using a tabloid is hardly adding strenght to your argument, it hasn't been a news paper since the 70's. Missing the point that no one goes to jail over not paying a TV licence is convenient....
Pay, don't pay I could care less.....
I think stating the fact that people don't go to jail for not paying their TV Licence, but are jailed because they don't pay the fine, is a bit pedantic, its like saying you don't go to jail for drink driving, you go to jail for failing a breath test.
The root of all evil is money, and that is all of what the licence fee is about, ask yourself why, and what kind of Government or country, would charge a blind person who cant see a TV, a fee for watching it. albeit at a reduced rate.
And do the people abroad, who use the Iplayer and other BBC services need a licence?
I have just read in the Express that we have voted to leave the EU, almost believed it till I realised the tabloid hasn't been a newspaper since the 70,s
I advise people on TV's,PVR's, etc. What they watch on them is their business.
ITV (or at least the franchises that make up ITV) started broadcasting in September 1955.
No, they didn't. DigitalUK made it very clear in the leaflet that was sent out to every household in the UK that all they needed to do was to make sure that their TV could get a digital signal. So all they needed to do was to buy a digitial receiver ('a gizmo' - which was about £18-25) if they didn't have one already, and part of the licence fee went towards that switchover, including paying for digiboxs (and even Sky) for certain categories of people.
Delighted as we were to sell people lots of new TV's and PVR's (a better idea for many anyway), we were more than happy to advise people what they really needed to get a digital signal (BTW - there is no such thing as a 'digital aerial', which scammed a fair number of people), and cautioned people about buying the wrong thing in a panic. Until last year, I had a CRT TV with a digibox, and it was fine. If people dumbed their old TV's, then it wasn't for lack of information or advice.
This can be answered at the same time as Dewi's 'So why not a 'We Cannae Git Na Stinkin Bradban Ya Wee Bazzas' license for those with intermittent or no signal to receive the iPlayer?' point.
The BBC gives lots of services (including stuff like LW, which is incredibly expensive considering just how few people use it), on lots of different platforms. They were nice enough to come up with Iplayer (which everyone else has copied), which, until this month, you didn't even need a TV licence to use. They can't be blamed if people dont want/can't have broadband (and the percentage of the population have used the internet is currently running around 87%), any more than you get a reduction on your licence because you can't listen to Radio 4 Extra, because you dont have a DAB radio. The TV Licence covers you having a TV/able to receive live TV - the rest is up to you. However, the licence fee is, in real terms, about as cheap as its been for a very long time - look at the chart below:
I dont like Capita either, but they now have the contract that the PO (now private of course) used to have, and they do a huge amount of work for the private and the public sector (hadn't heard of Paystation before). The TV Licencing website has a fair amount about which companies the BBC uses http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15 , and the contract with Capita was renewed in 2011 and will run until 2020. The cost of the contract as announced was £560m. The cost for 2014-15 was £101.4m, which:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-financial-information-AB19
I'm not ignoring the 3,500 people going through the couts every week, but I am putting them in context. In 2015, there were 27m households. In March 2014, 95% of them had TV's or watched live TV on another device. So thats 25.65m households. TV Licencing estimate the evasion/non payment rate to be about 5.1%. Which means that 24.34m households just paid them (OK, sometimes with some prompting - they write just under a million letters a year, and a fair number then pay it).
Your quoted figure of 3,500 people a week equals 182,000 per year (I had a figure from 2013 of 178,332 people in England and Wales https://recombu.com/digital/article/tv-licence-fee-myths-busted#, but add Scotland (15,000) and then a yearly varience, so close enough). 182k out of 25.65m is 0.709%. And out of that 178,332 people whose paperwork went through the courts that year, 153,369 were found guilty. So about 86%.
There are a number of anti-TV licence websites (with 'horror stories'), and a fair amount of footage of people filming TV Licencing Inspectors on Youtube. But there is no 'IhadavisitfromanicechapwhosaidthatstotallyOkbecauseyoudonthaveaTVandwewillputitonourrecords'com , nor is there any footage on Youtube of an licencing inspector looking at the back of someones TV, and saying, 'yes, thats fine, you've covered over the Belling Lee connection to the tuner and you've no aerial and your just watching DVD's. Have a nice day'.
Nor are there non angry letters in the papers saying 'I dont have a TV and dont pay the Licence Fee, but I do like listening to the radio, and really enjoy Ken Bruce's show in the morning'. Funny that.
As for whether the Tv Licence is good value, thats a very individual judgement.
True, no TV, no licence, no cost of the electricity, etc. However, the company paying for a product to be advertised anywhere still has to account for that cost, be it directly or indirectly. And that includes those teabags, the place you bought them from and the company who supplies the energy to boil the kettle.
No. Have a TV, dont have a TV, its up to the individual. However, if you've a TV/other device which can watch live TV, you need a licence. Freesat is pretty much Freeview for satellite users, and the channels that use it (which are very largely the same ones that use Freeview) pay to be part of it and be included in the EPG in much the same way. Using that platform has nothing at all to do with those 'who can't get the BBC' - its much more to do with what equipment you already have, and can you get a terrestial signal, and even if you can, how many channels you can get.
Once we get universal high speed (and by high speed, I mean South Korean high speed, not the UK version) broadband, we could stream everything. But thats unlikely to happen anytime soon, even if everyone wanted broadband, and the bandwidth needed would be vast, even without 4K. I've been promised jetpacks for a while, and they havn't happened either. And my broadband went down for a while last night, whereas the TV signal was perfect.
The Lords did stop an attempt at decriminalisation (and the Lords is the home of the great and the good, the sort of people who sit on the BBC Trust, etc), but frankly, the alternatives are currently unworkable. Advertising would bankrupt almost all the commercial channels, and subscription would require billion to be spent by all of us on new equipment and much increased annual costs, plus pretty much the death of public sector broadcasting. Even Whittingdale knew that, which was why he and his 'advisors' suggested 'voluntary subscription' to square the advantages of the licence fee with the ideological purity of its abolition (which didn't pass the laughter test).
And politicians can read polls - they know that they are generally much less popular than the BBC, and deciding on a course which results in getting rid of the Shipping Broadcast or Antiques Roadshow is tantamount to political suicide. The Labour Party, Lib Dems and all the nat. parties (the SNP has been stroppy, but they know where their bread is buttered) are all in favour of the BBC and the licence fee.
The BBC has always evolved, albeit often quite slowly in some areas, while being quite radical in others. Before WW2, the BBC could not report on events before they had been reported in the papers, lest the press barons faced competition. This didn't really work when the BBC was unable to report a bombing raid on London the listeners could hear live during a BBC broadcast. That changed. The BBC's monitoring service was direct result of WW2, and the World Service was a mix of broadcasting to Empire and the wartime broadcasting to the occupied countries. It was the BBC that introduced HD TV (as it then was) in 1964 (although the old 405 system had ben HD in 1936!), and its was BBC2 that was the first in Europe to introduce colour (the channels boss was David Attenborough - what happened to him?). And it was the BBC that introduced the worlds first teletext service, Ceefax, in 1974. They also developed NICAM, Iplayer, etc.
When the US Forces network during WW2 became more popular than the staid BBC programmes, the BBC stepped up popular entertainment (they did suggest jamming the US transmissions first!), and the same happened when the pirate stations started in the 60's - hence Radio 1, etc. So yes, the BBC has evolved, and will have to in the future.
Eh? You lost me completely... do you know what Godwin's law is? And once invoked, the person has to exit the debate.... it was a tongue in cheek reference to that.
What has any of that got to do with forum rules?
Similar threads
