this post was submitted on
25 points (90% like it)
28 up votes 3 down votes
all 62 comments

[–]WilliamTM 40 points41 points ago

It might be legal to not have a TV licence, but remember that it funds the shows you watch and enjoy, so it's worth paying for in my opinion, even if you never watch live TV.

[–]devolute 15 points16 points ago

If it wasn't for the TV license we'd have a simliar tv news situation to the US. That means Bill O'Reilly on Fox News instead of Paxman on Newsnight.

[–]agentlame 2 points3 points ago

In the U.S. you have to pay for cable to see Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. (And The Daily Show, which is on Comedy Central.)

If you don't have cable, you get just get local TV, which isn't that bias. Further, local TV includes the wonderful PBS. PBS isn't bias in it's news programming, but it does have a slightly liberal lean. But, that is only because, in the U.S., presenting anything based on facts is considered liberal.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Nature documentaries are pro-evolution and anti-Christian.

[–]agentlame 0 points1 point ago

If you are joking, that is funny. If you are serious, that is fucking terrifying.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Joking.

It would be obvious, if some fundamentalists weren't so incredibly nuts.

Here's a creationist disproving evolution with peanut butter. (starts at 40 seconds)

[–]agentlame 2 points3 points ago

Sigh... Poe's Law strikes again.

[–]CptHaddock[S] 6 points7 points ago

Well, that's perfectly true and part of the reason I feel guilty about it. I justify it to myself that I'm on minimum wage and don't need the expense but I could afford it really.

I also tell myself I'll start getting one when I earn more but maybe I'm just being a little shit? It's hard to motivate yourself to pay for something you don't need to on moral grounds alone. That's why I wanted the community's thoughts.

[–]VirtualProtector 9 points10 points ago

I think you have quite a gracious attitude to this actually :) It is tricky being on minimum wage - every penny counts. It is nice to support the beeb, but I say only do it when you can afford to for now considering, you are not technically breaking the law.

[–]CA3080 4 points5 points ago

I also tell myself I'll start getting one when I earn more but maybe I'm just being a little shit?

I was always like that about music during my undergrad.

Now I buy loads of music because I feel guilty about how much I used to download.

This isn't really helpful is it?

[–]CptHaddock[S] 3 points4 points ago

That is part of it too. I've never bought loads of music but have bought pretty much none in the last 10 years, I just watch youtube videos though, I don't pirate music at all. I have hundreds of bookmarks and listen to the radio on iPlayer a lot (Late Junction. Love it.)

Again with movies, I don't go to the cinema, don't buy DVDs, watch them on iPlayer a lot, occasionally pirate them must admit.

Books I love, have shelves and shelves of them and still buy them.

Maybe paying for the licence would feel like I'm contributing something to the creative community. It's not tearing me apart inside but recent things like SOPA et al. brought it to the forefront of my conciousness I guess.

[–]CA3080 2 points3 points ago

I just watch youtube videos though, I don't pirate music at all.

You might as well pirate and save youtube the bandwidth tbh :/

[–]BouncingLlama 2 points3 points ago

Now I buy loads of music because I feel guilty about how much I used to download.

Same here for movies. If I can afford it, I buy it, if I can't but happen to acquire it it goes on a "backorder" list and is bought when I can afford it again. I'm not quite sure how long I'll keep it up, though: DVDs have become such a shit-fest with piracy warnings and trailers ("Coraline" which I bought a few days ago was the first DVD where even VLC failed to skip that crud, which will likely be the final nail in that coffin) that downloading is now easier, faster, cheaper and better in every conceivable way.

Apologies in advance for the mini rant.

[–]ZOIDO 0 points1 point ago

Just imagine SOPA or ACTA is live... I guess we would just hear a shit load of new aspiring artists?

[–]JackIsidore 0 points1 point ago

Don't pay.

You are not required to get a TV license if you don't watch live telly.

You are being shat on by all these bills, the obligation you feel is due to being indoctrinated.

[–]Dave_Hedgehog 0 points1 point ago

Huh? That's like saying buy a Manchester United season ticket because you enjoy watching Manchester united even though you don't go to the games.

[–]Meathamper 18 points19 points ago

You're not breaking the law, but as someone who lives in Canada, I would kill to have a TV licence if it meant having the national broadcaster here properly funded with the kind of programming the BBC offers.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

You have my vote.

[–]tangled_foot 0 points1 point ago

CBC is pretty good I think, actually Canadian TV on the whole is great, I love the fishing show that ends with this a 'campfire debate' section when some middle age guy just rants at the camera for 5 minutes. - Do you know what show this is?

The BBC needs more of that!

[–]Meathamper 1 point2 points ago

Wasn't that The Red Green Show? That's pretty old.

One of the things I want to see the CBC do is just get rid of TV commercials. There have been so many quality programmes in the past ten years that have been axed because the ratings and the ad dollars aren't there. Some of those shows are comparable to the kind of thing you'd see on the BBC, but the thing about the BBC is that they can do a lot more when they're not constrained by ad revenue and pandering to the lowest common denominator. (cough ITV cough)

[–]tangled_foot 1 point2 points ago

Hmm, no it wasn't that, it might not have been on CBC, I just moved to canada, and I got a tv aerial about a week ago, I get 6 channels, I don't know what they are, but I get CTV, so I can watch american TV.... I agree, though, TV license is only a good thing for exactly the reasons you say.

[–]tico24 8 points9 points ago

Your assessment is legally correct, yes. It won't stop the license people from hounding you though.

[–]Vibster 8 points9 points ago

Yeah but it's sooo much fun to tell their lackeys to fuck off whenever the come to the door with their empty threats.

"We have a warrant to come in here to check for a TV"

"Oh yeah? Why aren't the police with you?"

[–]itsdave 8 points9 points ago

I opened the door to one of their incompetents once with the line "am I correct in thinking you don't have a warrant?"

his face dropped instantly, it was beautiful. He asked if I had a TV, I replied "I'm afraid I can't answer that", and greeted him as he left with a "cheers mate!"

And then got onto my landlord who it said in our contract would pay for tv license, and had a shitfit at him ;)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I don't think the police are necessary when trying to enforce a warrant. Police usually get called when someone refuses to comply with the warrant.

[–]agentlame 1 point2 points ago

So in the UK anyone can get obtain and act on warrant? In the US only Law Enforcement can obtain or act on one.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

A warrant is just a special court document granting legal powers which would otherwise be a crime. An execution warrant, for example, gives a judge in the United States the legal power to kill someone. A County Court warrant in the UK gives powers to 'officials of the court' to recover money and goods from a person and their property.

[–]agentlame 1 point2 points ago*

Of course, you're correct. I should have specified search warrant.

I'm still a bit confused by your response. In the US only Law Enforcement (Police, Sheriffs, FBI, ATF, etc) can act on a search warrant. Does this differ in the UK? Are 'officials of the court' anyone the court deems worthy of acting on a search warrant?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago*

No. Well sort of, a TV licence inspector can apply for one, but they cannot forcibly enter your home.

Edited.

Oh and for the safety of bees, apparently the government can kick our door in and take our precious bees. The Bees Act 1980

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

It's going to be very difficult to prove you were watching TV without being allowed into the house.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

Of course, but the police can be called, and the occupier could be arrested for not following a court order. Then he/she will be at the mercy of all kinds of statutes, the police can search the premises, confiscate and search computers, take their fingerprints and DNA, hold them in custody and later be fined for a Breach of the Peace.

Edited.

[–]RedW0lf 4 points5 points ago

This comes up in my office all time because one of the guys there did a similar thing to you. After researching the subject he came back with that you shoulddnt need one as long as your not watching live broadcasts over the net.

However this is likely to change in the near future, if it already has not. A quick look on the BBC website should give you the answers you need.

[–]CptHaddock[S] 2 points3 points ago

I'm pretty confident that I don't need one, it was more of a moral question, should I get one anyway, even though I technically don't need it? I can't get mad at politicians expenses if they only morally crossed the line for instance.

I also imagine they will change those rules as soon as they possibly can.

[–]Vibster 4 points5 points ago

Yeah the BBC does not live off of your charity. If you don't have to pay for something, don't pay for it.

[–]ya-ya-oh-oh 5 points6 points ago

the bbc pay alan hansen one MILLION pounds a year for his sh*t analysis of football, and you feel guilty for not paying your licence fee when you are not obliged to? if you're concerned about morals, it has to be a two way street.

why don't you take the £150 you would have given the bbc and use it to get yourself something awesome like a quality surround sound system or upgrade your pc?

i appreciate that you may feel like you are cheating but you are not. dont give your hard earned money away when you dont need to.

[–]rbnc 1 point2 points ago

Awesome quality surround system for £150? Link us up then!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Well to be fair you can probably get a much better system than almost any TV has built in.

Here's a fine pair of 2.1 speakers. Probably worth it for the subwoofer alone.

Not the best, certainly, but going to be better than those on your TV already (unless you spent billions on your TV).

[–]SexWithTwins 9 points10 points ago

This speaks to the next big shit storm in UK media. The findings of the Leveson Inquiry are going to have repercussions way beyond print journalism. The keyword here is Murdoch.

Anyone who thinks he's going to forgive and forget for the ditching of his plans to wholly own BSkyB is deluded. And since he also largely blames the BBC and Channel 4 for the sinking of Rebekah Brooks, and world's largest English language tabloid, he's now going to go after the licence fee with even more determination. But he's playing a waiting game, because he knows full well about the potential to deliver a service viewers exactly like you and me want, but currently aren't getting.

We no longer have a TV licence, because we live on a tight enough budget as it is, without having to factor in the cost of occasionally glimpsing the news headlies and the odd episode of QI. On top of that we're vociferously opposed to the idea of paying for Top Gear and Strictly Come Dancing, on the weak argument that it enables the BBC to carry on making The World at One and natural history documentaries.

We're also penalised by of the downside of not being able to (legally) stream as-it-airs content, for example, because iPlayer deliberately delays the rebroadcast of topical content, whereas light entertainment is immediately made available. Case in point being, whenever an episode of The Girl Whose Nipples Speak German is aired on BBC Three, it is immediately available on iPlayer. But Newsnight and Question Time aren't made available until, sometimes, 24 hours later.

Murdoch knows, from the model adopted by Dish in the US, that people will pay for content À la carte, on the belief that it offers more choice. In reality, it segregates and segments the market even more than it already is. Genre based Electronic Programme Guides are the future of TV. But this is anathema to the idea of paying a flat fee.

What happens next is down to whether or not the British public are prepared to see the BBC go to a voluntary funding model, similar to PBS in the States, through a switch to a lower cost replacement for the licence fee, with the option to top-up the subscription package for premium content. What's worrying, isn't if this will happen, it's when. Because if Murdoch gets his timing right (and when has he ever not?) this could potentially destroy the BBC altogether — because Murdoch ultimately holds the rights to more premium content than the BBC can afford to compete against.

I would argue, rather than trying to out-do Murdoch on broad interest programming, they should focus on their core strengths and focus on science, factual and drama. But I rather suspect the BBC Trust have an agenda driven more by the profits of BBC World, the commercial wing of the BBC, than they do the continuation of University Challenge and Only Connect.

[–]CptHaddock[S] 8 points9 points ago

Also the licence fee is less than a basic sky package, I had that for a year and it was not worth it at all. Only another reason to pay your fee though!

[–]djomp 1 point2 points ago

Just a note on the amount of time taken to get things to iPlayer - anything pre-recorded should be on immediately, as they can encode it and get it ready to release as the show goes out; but live shows like those you mention will incur some delay while it is encoded and whatever else. I agree that it shouldn't take 24 hours, but still, it'll never be as instantaneous.

[–]SexWithTwins 0 points1 point ago

You can buy real time MPEG encoders for £99 on eBay. I think the BBC's budget extends to slightly more than that. There is no technical reason why they can't have content which they wholly own the rebroadcasting rights to, to be made available immediately after first broadcast.

[–]ZOIDO 0 points1 point ago

Forward thinking!! Do you do marketing by any chance?

One word. Netflix... Is that Murdoch owned?

EDIT: No.

[–]SexWithTwins 0 points1 point ago

Nope. I'm just interested in that kind of thing.

[–]JackIsidore 0 points1 point ago

So the conclusion is - you have to support the BBC to keep Merdeoch at bay?

[–]SexWithTwins 2 points3 points ago

Merdeoch is the least of our worries ;D

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Useless commend but I read that in the voice of the person that talked about Murdoch in the 2011 Screenwipe.

Anybody know who it is doing that voice?

Interesting comment! Though maybe a bit suspicious?

[–]CptHaddock[S] 0 points1 point ago

Do you mean Charlie Brooker?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

The guy that narrated the little sub-section within Brooker's show.

[–]widgetas 0 points1 point ago

That was Adam Curtis. I enjoy his sections on Newswipe. I need to watch some of his longer documentaries.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

I think that even if you don't watch any BBC, or use their website or any of their services, you should still pay the license fee because of the benefit you receive from living in a society that has the BBC in it.

[–]CptHaddock[S] 0 points1 point ago

Well I'm doing a similar thing with the Daily Mail so that should offset my obligation in that regard.

[–]englebert 0 points1 point ago

You are paying for the Daily Mail even though you don't read it?

I think most of their 'readers' just look at the pictures and headlines.

[–]CptHaddock[S] 1 point2 points ago

I'm not paying for the Daily Mail and I'm also not reading it, similar but different.

[–]ohreilly 0 points1 point ago

I don't think that the "benefit" the BBC has is worth paying £150 a year for if I am not watching their television or using their services. I'd especially rather not contribute to the fat salaries of BBC executives or a few of its so called "talent".

I'd rather spend that £150 on the entertainment I do use, and if that includes buying a BBC DVD then so be it.

Maybe the BBC should form a charity for people who want to donate what they see fit for using the non-licensable services e.g. bbc.co.uk, iPlayer, radio, and for people who can't buy a TV licence.

[–]phpadam 1 point2 points ago

Moved to your PC? I hope your a member of TVCatchup.com great website. Then go buy a TV Licence to pay for new shows.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I'll have Bruce Forsyth for £145.50 please.

[–]motlive -1 points0 points ago

Well it seems as long as you don't click the "Watch Live" button then you don't need it, but we all know you will, so I hope they catch you.

Paying a TV license, for ad free, uninterrupted, excellent TV is not something I am bothered paying for. In fact I would pay to not have adverts on other channels.

[–]Samphire 1 point2 points ago

"we all know you will, so I hope they catch you"

You have a very low opinion of human nature. You're presuming that this person will break the law, despite demonstrating a will to pay the fee even when they don't have to. Can you not believe that some people are just decent and honest?

[–]motlive -1 points0 points ago

Humanity, what a bunch of bastards.

Seriously though, its just a single link to click to view live television, its not planning a murder, rape, robbery or other such heinous action.

I just think if the OP had serious guilt about it, he wouldn't have raised it as a concern.

[–]bacon_cake -1 points0 points ago

Legally you're absolutely correct.

It is however a loophole so I wouldn't be surprised if it's closed in the near future. But make hay while the sun shines!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

It's not a loophole. The BBC were pushing the government to charge the license fee on computer users during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Government declined, and because they knew people like me only a bought a TV to play games on, or watch a film, they decided to change the terms and conditions.