Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

TV licence

JC78DSL99JC78DSL99 Posts: 94
edited July 2015 in The cake stop
Following todays inevitable decision, I got thinking about how little I watch on the BBC. Apparently you only need a licence to watch or record 'live' programmes. You do not need a licence for radio or the iplayer/online repeats.

Has anyone cancelled or is considering cancelling their TV licence? It seems quite straight forward by filling in the short declaration on the TV Licensing website and cancelling the direct debit.

Please no Clarkson bashing (there is already a thread running) or general BBC discussion.
«1

Posts

  • I tried weaseling out of the TV license a few years ago and was told that if I have internet at home and have the opportunity to watch ANY BBC content I have to pay. have they changed the rules now?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,055
    As long as it is not live then you should be okay.

    "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

    I have no idea how it can be proved one way or the other when using a computer.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • jibberjimjibberjim Posts: 2,810
    I tried weaseling out of the TV license a few years ago and was told that if I have internet at home and have the opportunity to watch ANY BBC content I have to pay. have they changed the rules now?

    It's got nothing to do with BBC content, If the only live TV watch is cycling streaming on eurosport you'll still need a licence. The distinction is live content, not BBC content, if you were really told the above you were being misled, and it's not having the opportunity, it's actually doing so.
    Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/
  • jibberjim wrote:
    I tried weaseling out of the TV license a few years ago and was told that if I have internet at home and have the opportunity to watch ANY BBC content I have to pay. have they changed the rules now?

    It's got nothing to do with BBC content, If the only live TV watch is cycling streaming on eurosport you'll still need a licence. The distinction is live content, not BBC content, if you were really told the above you were being misled, and it's not having the opportunity, it's actually doing so.

    Wow, thanks for that, that was what I was told by the license group itself when I called to see what could be done about not paying. I haven't had any live cable for years, I don't really see the point in sitting in front of a t.v.

    I'll cancel it now though. Yay!
  • Garry HGarry H Posts: 6,614
    Heard on Radio 4 last week that plans are afoot to include iPlayer in things wot you need a license for.
  • WunnundaWunnunda Posts: 214
    The licence was originally, of course, a licence to own receiving apparatus (as I believe it was called) and the money was used to fund the BBC. There used to be separate radio (or should I say, 'wireless' :) ) and TV licences and latterly B&W and Colour licences.

    The radio licence was scrapped a while back and of course the whole concept of 'receiving apparatus' has become completely muddied by technology change. None of that mattered much until pay TV came along and people got used to paying for content and started asking awkward questions like "Why am I paying for CBBC when I've got no kids". Frankly, for the money, the licence fee is incredible value but people will moan abut their 'right to chose' being more imortant.
  • team47bteam47b Posts: 6,424
    In Portugal they don't have a TV licence, the cost is included as part of the electricity bills so everyone pays.

    I live in a totally solar powered house :D

    Although I don't actually own a TV :oops:
    my isetta is a 300cc bike
  • ProssPross Posts: 22,145
    People need to stop looking at it as a licence and just treat it as a tax. That's all it is albeit a ring fenced tax. I think it will be either scrapped soon or amended so that you need it for the Internet too in order to stop people avoiding paying.
  • jibberjimjibberjim Posts: 2,810
    Garry H wrote:
    Heard on Radio 4 last week that plans are afoot to include iPlayer in things wot you need a license for.

    Charter renewal is next year, so expect all sorts of changes and lots of arguments but no actual change until 2017 when the new charter would start, although it's going to be quite rushed as real debate won't start until after the election. As things stand though it is watching live broadcast content of any type that is the deciding factor, watching iPlayer or 4OD or Netflix or anything then you don't need one.

    (I should probably have some sort of employer disclaimer in here...)
    Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/
  • wongataawongataa Posts: 838
    jibberjim wrote:
    As things stand though it is watching live broadcast content of any type that is the deciding factor, watching iPlayer or 4OD or Netflix or anything then you don't need one.
    Except if you are watching a live stream on iPlayer you do need one. They do have live stuff on iPlayer.
  • VTechVTech Posts: 4,736
    According to the law, you must pay a licence if you watch or record live TV, nothing to do with the BBC.
    I think it is archaic, totally pointless in this day and age.
    Living MY dream.
  • KerguelenKerguelen Posts: 248
    Just pay it, loser.
  • I don't quite enjoy paying for something I don't use. I'm going to cancel it, I hope they don't make it mandatory for anyone who watches anything on any medium.
  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 3,410
    VTech wrote:
    According to the law, you must pay a licence if you watch or record live TV, nothing to do with the BBC.
    I think it is archaic, totally pointless in this day and age.
    Be careful what you wish for. Once its gone, its gone. I agree that the best drama is now made elsewhere, but the science, nature and news work that the BBC does is of far greater quality than anyone else.

    I also agree that its hard to see how they manage to spend £4bn of our tax and still bleet for more.

    At a minimum the BBC news function should be ring fenced. Its a bit parochial at times, but its not biased - that's why ALL political persuasions take issue with it from time to time. Contrast this to the US where the news stations have agendas as clear as our newpapers (think Sky news, only worse). If you scrapped the TV licence entirely, then C4 news and ITN would also be lost.
  • plowmarplowmar Posts: 1,032
    Last I heard on this subject was that the fee was to be scrapped but replaced by a tax on each dwelling wether or not they had a receiving implement.

    By the way I hate rolling news irrespective of who provides it, the same thing repeated again and again. Then the ticker tape thing at the bottom being even more repetitive , and usually just repeating what is being discussed on screen. By general opinion the Al Jazeerah english edition is the best for world coverage, and in depth reporting, without being restricted to time slots
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    People moan about the TV licence but do they ever consider how much they pay for commercial TV?
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • People moan about the TV licence but do they ever consider how much they pay for commercial TV?

    I pay a whopping £0. I don't even have free view. If I could save the cost of the T.V. license that's 100% of the costs I pay. Sounds like a good deal to me.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    People moan about the TV licence but do they ever consider how much they pay for commercial TV?

    I pay a whopping £0. I don't even have free view. If I could save the cost of the T.V. license that's 100% of the costs I pay. Sounds like a good deal to me.
    You miss my point.

    If you purchase anything that is advertised on tv or a company that sponsors programmes you are indirectly being charged. So how much a year would that add up to over a year?
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • Ber NardBer Nard Posts: 827
    Your point only stands if people go out and buy products or use services for no other reason than they've seen an advert. You're not obliged to buy something because you've seen an advert for it but you are obliged to buy a TV license if you own a TV.

    On the whole, the point of advertising is to increase market share - the adverts are aimed at people in the market for a particular product.
  • verylonglegsverylonglegs Posts: 3,415
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Your point only stands if people go out and buy products or use services for no other reason than they've seen an advert. You're not obliged to buy something because you've seen an advert for it but you are obliged to buy a TV license if you own a TV.

    On the whole, the point of advertising is to increase market share - the adverts are aimed at people in the market for a particular product.

    This isn't the case, you need one if you watch any content as it is transmitted live, even if it's on a mobile phone. TV ownership doesn't come into it. I didn't have a licence for 4yrs until recently because I never watched live television, I was watching stuff on catch up. I now have a licence as I watch live sport at home sometimes.

    Although I suspect they've no way of determining if you are watching live TV and I've been told they actually have to catch you in the act watching without a licence but legally they've no right to come into your house, so if you don't open the door then there is nothing they can do. How true that is I've no idea, I was brought up to be honest so I paid for the licence.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Your point only stands if people go out and buy products or use services for no other reason than they've seen an advert. You're not obliged to buy something because you've seen an advert for it but you are obliged to buy a TV license if you own a TV.

    On the whole, the point of advertising is to increase market share - the adverts are aimed at people in the market for a particular product.
    Whether you've viewed an advert or not if you buy that advertised product a %age of its cost will be for its advertising.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • Ber NardBer Nard Posts: 827
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Your point only stands if people go out and buy products or use services for no other reason than they've seen an advert. You're not obliged to buy something because you've seen an advert for it but you are obliged to buy a TV license if you own a TV.

    On the whole, the point of advertising is to increase market share - the adverts are aimed at people in the market for a particular product.
    Whether you've viewed an advert or not if you buy that advertised product a %age of its cost will be for its advertising.

    Your spend will go into one big pot to cover all of a company's overheads and for a company that can afford to splash out on TV advertising, your monetary contribution that can attributed to their TV ad campaign would be insignificant compared to the cost of a TV license.
  • DebeliDebeli Posts: 637
    I've lived in many places around the globe and have yet to see or hear TV or radio that rivals what we have here.

    The TV License is a trifling sum and seems close to the best value I get of all the money I spend. Why would one want not to have one?

    I believe that the days of a subsidised (and ad-free) BBC may somehow be close to their end, but many will regret the day they pass.

    I too like to grumble about some BBC spending decisions and some content, but there is nothing to touch them... Whatever you think of their news and current affairs programming, try to find anythng of quality in the USA or many of out EU neighbours...

    I recall people welcoming the huge retail advantages of the Internet. The same voices now moan about the death of the High Street. Voices bitching about the cost of the TV Licence may yet have some rose-tinted regret to get through.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    Well said Debeli.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • VTechVTech Posts: 4,736
    Debeli wrote:
    I've lived in many places around the globe and have yet to see or hear TV or radio that rivals what we have here.

    The TV License is a trifling sum and seems close to the best value I get of all the money I spend. Why would one want not to have one?

    I believe that the days of a subsidised (and ad-free) BBC may somehow be close to their end, but many will regret the day they pass.

    I too like to grumble about some BBC spending decisions and some content, but there is nothing to touch them... Whatever you think of their news and current affairs programming, try to find anythng of quality in the USA or many of out EU neighbours...

    I recall people welcoming the huge retail advantages of the Internet. The same voices now moan about the death of the High Street. Voices bitching about the cost of the TV Licence may yet have some rose-tinted regret to get through.


    Can't fault you in anything you have written. My life has become very internet orientated but I do moan about the death of the high street. I live a few miles from Bromsgrove which was once a thriving village town and now desolate due to Asda and Morrisons movig in and destroying the town.
    When you add to that the ease of home shopping, cheap oone holidays and flights and there really is no need for towns.
    On the same level I get to view TV around the world and even though I do moan about the BBC I still look for the BBC channel wherever I am.
    Living MY dream.
  • crescentcrescent Posts: 1,073
    Debeli wrote:
    I've lived in many places around the globe and have yet to see or hear TV or radio that rivals what we have here.

    The TV License is a trifling sum and seems close to the best value I get of all the money I spend. Why would one want not to have one?

    I believe that the days of a subsidised (and ad-free) BBC may somehow be close to their end, but many will regret the day they pass.

    I too like to grumble about some BBC spending decisions and some content, but there is nothing to touch them... Whatever you think of their news and current affairs programming, try to find anythng of quality in the USA or many of out EU neighbours...

    I recall people welcoming the huge retail advantages of the Internet. The same voices now moan about the death of the High Street. Voices bitching about the cost of the TV Licence may yet have some rose-tinted regret to get through.

    I could not agree more with what you have said. I don't watch a great deal of TV but there's very little on the BBC that is not decent quality and well produced. Even if the content is not to your particular taste it is generally well made.
    Ribble Gran Fondo
    Bianchi Impulso
    BMC Teammachine

    “When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. “ ~H.G. Wells
    Edit - "Unless it's a BMX"
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,201
    ... but legally they [TV License Enforcement officers] have no right to come into your house, so if you don't open the door then there is nothing they can do...

    They're like vampires.

    But we pay it. We watch live TV and - compared to other bills - it's very small beer.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • earthearth Posts: 934
    Do it :D

    If you want to send the BBC a message then there is nothing they will listen to other than lost revenue.
  • earthearth Posts: 934
    Debeli wrote:
    I've lived in many places around the globe and have yet to see or hear TV or radio that rivals what we have here.

    The TV License is a trifling sum and seems close to the best value I get of all the money I spend. Why would one want not to have one?

    I believe that the days of a subsidised (and ad-free) BBC may somehow be close to their end, but many will regret the day they pass.

    I too like to grumble about some BBC spending decisions and some content, but there is nothing to touch them... Whatever you think of their news and current affairs programming, try to find anythng of quality in the USA or many of out EU neighbours...

    I recall people welcoming the huge retail advantages of the Internet. The same voices now moan about the death of the High Street. Voices bitching about the cost of the TV Licence may yet have some rose-tinted regret to get through.


    I won't regret the demise of the TV license or the BBC. I don't have a TV and I don't watch the BBC or any other live content. I also rarely watch any adverts because there are almost none on uTube.

    Charging a license to watch material made by independent companies that is delivered by mediums provided by other independent companies and then giving it to the BBC is in-just.
  • gingamangingaman Posts: 576
    earth wrote:
    I also rarely watch any adverts because there are almost none on uTube.

    There are many, many adverts on YouTube. Fortunately they allow one to skip after the first 5 seconds on most adverts, Generally before anything of substance even happens. A large number of ads I have caught the first 5 seconds of, have been completely baffling as to what they are advertising.
    They are, however, starting to force you to watch up to 3 mins of ads before your video in some cases though.

    (edited for incorrect quote formatting)
Sign In or Register to comment.