UK TV Licence

[tggzzz]

We can also watch TV programmes which are interrupted and sparse, with only about 40 minutes of programme per hour. For the other 33% of the time our eyeballs and brains are being sold to companies. The companies pay money, we pay with the only thing that cannot be replaced: our remaining life.

The smart ones will fast forward or skip the ads. That's if the content is worth watching in the first place...

Does your television have a fast forward button?

When you press it, do you lose 20 minutes/hour of your life, e.g. by becoming comatose? Yes, I do realise that's what happens to those who can only see US broadcast TV.

[tggzzz]

It's kind of messed that it's even a thing.    Yet another example of government overreach into our lives.   What happens if you just need a TV for a purpose like just displaying something like security cameras or using it as a monitor?  Still need a license I bet? 

That is an ignorant comment. It makes readers discount and/or ignore all your other points.

[tggzzz]

Yes, it is a tax and IMHO should be paid as such, according to income and ability to pay.

Oooh! Politics on this forum.

Apart from that your comment is ignorant and wrong. Firstly many taxes hit those least able to pay, VAT being the prime example. Secondly, not everybody does have to pay.

I have no objection to HM Government paying for TV...

I'll do you a deal. You stop telling us what is valuable to us, and I won't tell you what is valuable to you Must. Not. Mention. Bull.....ing

[CJay]

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense.

Because it's a legal robbing. All of the money goes to BBC only regardless of what you watch. Even if you use satellite dish or cable TV. Only legal way to not pay is disconnecting any antenna/cable whatsoever.

Well, ~90% does, there's a bit left over to pay for other 'stuff' but it's a bit of a job to work out what it goes on.

I'm happy with it though, I reckon the BBC entertainment offering is worth it, the news and current affairs is another matter entirely.

[tggzzz]

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense.

Because it's a legal robbing. All of the money goes to BBC only regardless of what you watch. Even if you use satellite dish or cable TV. Only legal way to not pay is disconnecting any antenna/cable whatsoever.

Well, ~90% does, there's a bit left over to pay for other 'stuff' but it's a bit of a job to work out what it goes on.

I'm happy with it though, I reckon the BBC entertainment offering is worth it, the news and current affairs is another matter entirely.

Most people in the UK are happy with the licence fee concept. Of course if you ask them, they would rather pay less!

Every single person that I know that has experience of US broadcast TV, greatly appreciates the BBC and (to a lesser extent) the commercial channels. Why? Because they viscerally know how awful it is when you are the product being sold to advertisers. That especially includes the news; the sardonic comment is that US "foreign news" merely means "from another state"!

One example to illustrate the point, based on two lauded comedies:

• M*A*S*H: 256 episodes, laughter track to tell you when you should find it funny, and up to one smile per episode
• Fawlty Towers: 13 episodes, no need to be prodded into laughing (unless comatose), many belly laughs per episode

I don't know anything about Spanish TV. Perhaps the OP is basing his misapprehension on Spanish state TV?

[coppice]

Every single person that I know that has experience of US broadcast TV, greatly appreciates the BBC and (to a lesser extent) the commercial channels. Why? Because they viscerally know how awful it is when you are the product being sold to advertisers. That especially includes the news; the sardonic comment is that US "foreign news" merely means "from another state"!

Most Brits who experience US TV appreciate UK commercial TV just as much as the BBC. The UK regulations and practices of showing ads in infrequent bursts makes UK commercial TV a far more enjoyable experience than the US practice of very short bursts of actual programming between the ads. HBO must have been a really easy sell when it first appeared, offering the opportunity to sit back and enjoy the show.

[bd139]

Not a fan of the BBC or the license fee if I'm honest. Bar some of the original programming that is quite good, a lot of it shows distinct political bias towards the political party of the hour and thier prevaling opinions [1] and a lot of air time for minority opinions which are quite frankly fucking batshit insane. On top of that we have the whole pedophile scandal [2] cover up. Thirdly we have a lot of nearly brainwashing content about in demand industries aimed at smaller children [3].

On top of that pile of shit, the license enforcement is horrid. When I was a student we didn't have a license becase we all had computers and VCRs didn't give a shit about that sort of stuff. We watched video rentals and spent the rest of our time listening to David Gilmour. Alas one fine Thursday afternoon in 1992 we had the inspectors turn up and force their way in past my mechanical engineer friend into the property followed by a load of verbal threats. When they found no TV antenna in the property they left but the whole point is they are a private organisation who think they can behave like that. We reported them to the police and the police said they would do nothing because we couldn't prove they forced entry (despite the huge dent in the wall where they slammed the door open and the handle went though the paint).

On top of that the Police these days are generally "corporate enforcers" and the problem has got worse resulting in some interesting overreach situations (look up crimebodge as an example). Fortunately our justice system basically said "what the fuck?" to this.

At this point the TV is there to consume me, not for me to consume it when I choose so it stays off. All I watch is streaming media. I have a license for the benefit of a few programmes that my wife thinks is worth wasting valuable hours of life on and that's it.

If it's on commercial TV I tend to download stuff that is ripped off from US releases with the ads stripped and that's it. I won't wait 6 months for it to appear here or sit through ads here. I will pay for this if someone makes it available but it hasn't happened yet.

So criticism is valid if you ask me.

Edit: also to note I was a BBC contractor for a short period of time and the whole organisation is bent as fuck inside. It was seriously hard squeezing the invoice cash out of them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases
[3] Nina and the fucking Neurons.

[ebastler]

a lot of it shows distinct political bias towards the political party of the hour and thier prevaling opinions and a lot of air time for minority opinions

So you are complaining that they (a) give too much airtime to the majority, and (b) give too much airtime to the minorities? 

[Monkeh]

As someone who has not watched broadcast TV in ~20 years the TV license is a concept I've always found very bizarre. They should either encrypt the signal and require a subscription, or make it public and just roll the costs into the taxes that everyone pays. The tuner in my main TV has never been hooked up to anything, the one downstairs is connected only to vintage video game consoles. I would not want to alter the equipment nor would I want to pay for a license for something I don't use. The idea of allowing authorities into my home without being served with a search warrant is a rather foreign concept to me too.

The inability of certain groups to check facts is something I've always found very bizarre.

There is no need to pay a license or modify equipment if you don't watch TV.

[richard.cs]

If you don't watch live broadcast TV, or (recent change) watch the BBC catchup service then you don't need it even if you have devices capable of it. Saying "I have a TV, I only use it for Netflix and gaming" is fine and normal.

Enforcement basically consists of them asking you if you have a TV and sending threatening letters until you either pay up or make an "I don't need a license" declaration which causes them to leave you alone for 2 years. The police have nothing to do with it, there are private TV licensing people who go knocking on doors but they have no power to enter your house without a court order, which they can pretty much only get if they've seen you watching live TV through the window. If they do get a court order then, like debt collectors and similar, they can ask the police to attend to "keep the peace" - basically stand there in case you get violent.

You can have a political argument over whether it's a good way to fund some advertising-free channels that not everyone necessarily watches, but it's not the heavy-handed enforcement that some seem to think it is.

[bd139]

a lot of it shows distinct political bias towards the political party of the hour and thier prevaling opinions and a lot of air time for minority opinions

So you are complaining that they (a) give too much airtime to the majority, and (b) give too much airtime to the minorities? 

The legal mandate of the BBC is to present an unbiased view. That can only be done by presenting all of the facts. Giving no airtime strategically for things that are politically inconvenient and giving too much time to minority views which support political thought are the status quo at the moment.

A documentary they released a few years back was a fine example. They went through the Srebrenica massacre in detail but forgot to mention that the Muslims were the victims there and the Dutch UN operatives turned a blind eye. This was in the middle of the current terror propaganda.

[vealmike]

I own a rental property in the UK, it currently has no tenant, no furniture and definitely no TV.

The number of threatening letters that I get from TV Licensing and the tone of the letters is offending. Not courteous, not informing me of my rights, not one "please".
Instead I have repeated demands to either tell them I have no TV, or to pay up for a licence for that property. They threaten court action if I do neither of the these.

In reality, I am obliged to pay for a license if I watch any TV, whether terrestrial, satellite or internet streamed. If I do not do this, I am not liable for a license and I am not required to inform "TV Licensing" explicitly that I don't watch TV. As and when they send a politely worded, non threatening letter, I'll happily go on line and tell them I have no TV at this property. Until then, they are being ignored.

Apparently they have now opened an investigation.

[coppice]

I own a rental property in the UK, it currently has no tenant, no furniture and definitely no TV.

The number of threatening letters that I get from TV Licensing and the tone of the letters is offending. Not courteous, not informing me of my rights, not one "please".
Instead I have repeated demands to either tell them I have no TV, or to pay up for a licence for that property. They threaten court action if I do neither of the these.

In reality, I am obliged to pay for a license if I watch any TV, whether terrestrial, satellite or internet streamed. If I do not do this, I am not liable for a license and I am not required to inform "TV Licensing" explicitly that I don't watch TV. As and when they send a politely worded, non threatening letter, I'll happily go on line and tell them I have no TV at this property. Until then, they are being ignored.

Apparently they have now opened an investigation.

I received some of those letters after moving. They seem to be worded to alienate people, and minimise their cooperation.

[vealmike]

:nod:
I'd be quite happy to help them, if they stop fibbing to me about what I have to do and threatening me with legal action if I don't dance to their tune.

For the record, I do have a telly at my residence, I do watch it and I do pay a license fee there. Both because I'm required to and because I believe in the license fee system of funding the BBC.

[richard.cs]

I own a rental property in the UK, it currently has no tenant, no furniture and definitely no TV.

The number of threatening letters that I get from TV Licensing and the tone of the letters is offending. Not courteous, not informing me of my rights, not one "please".
Instead I have repeated demands to either tell them I have no TV, or to pay up for a licence for that property. They threaten court action if I do neither of the these.

In reality, I am obliged to pay for a license if I watch any TV, whether terrestrial, satellite or internet streamed. If I do not do this, I am not liable for a license and I am not required to inform "TV Licensing" explicitly that I don't watch TV. As and when they send a politely worded, non threatening letter, I'll happily go on line and tell them I have no TV at this property. Until then, they are being ignored.

Apparently they have now opened an investigation.

I received some of those letters after moving. They seem to be worded to alienate people, and minimise their cooperation.

Agreed, the tone of the letters is unnecessarily unpleasant, and probably counter-productive in the long term in that it most likely erodes public support for the whole TV license system.

[mikeselectricstuff]

In practice the only people that get prosecuted are those who admit  it, or can clearly be seen watching TV through a window from outside.
Their inspectors have no right of entry, so they just rely on threats and bullshit to get the gullible to cough up or allow them in.

[bd139]

Doesn't quite work like that. The police are sometimes called by the inspectors because the householder was being threatening. The police have very little knowledge of the actual law as it stands, relying on the CPS to cover their arses if they get it wrong, so are leveraged to gain access to keep the peace. When two police officers and a license officer turn up, you feel disempowered. This is a very common tactic used by debt collectors as well.

People who end up doing these jobs do so because they enjoy the intimidation aspect.

[tsman]

The extreme aggressiveness is because TV Licensing administration has been outsourced to Capita and they've got an incentive scheme. They've gotten into trouble before for their intimidation tactics and specifically targeting vulnerable people for easy cases.

[Ian.M]

In practice the only people that get prosecuted are those who admit  it, or can clearly be seen watching TV through a window from outside.
Their inspectors have no right of entry, so they just rely on threats and bullshit to get the gullible to cough up or allow them in.

Unless you can prove that you've got an audio only receiver, a timestamped audio recording with appropriate chain of custody could be pretty good proof you were watching broadcast TV.     Beware of inspectors stuffing microphones through your letterbox!

Also the BBC used to have the capability to detect  exactly what program you were watching on any CRT TV at  range of several hundred meters.  However  it was never accurate enough to distinguish between TVs back to back on either side of a party wall or even between floors of an apartment building.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

That's got a *LOT* harder with digital TV and flat panel TVs as there are no longer standard analog high amplitude scan coil and beam intensity signals to detect and spurious emissions from the tuner's local oscillator are both lower (due to better screening and miniaturisation) and harder to correlate with a specific channel.

That makes it a lot cheaper in the short term to employ a goon squad to door knock and intimidate rather than well equipped highly trained electronic surveillance operatives to actually gather proof of unlicensed TV viewing.

If you don't watch TV and aren't easily intimidated, do your bit for freedom and human rights by wasting as much of their time as possible, but don't let them in!   If you've really got big brass balls, and a large movie library, while talking to them, consult the TV schedule and if there's a movie on you own a copy of, cue it up, fast forward to your best guess of how far in the broadcast is, turn it up and hit play!

[NiHaoMike]

Does your television have a fast forward button?

When you press it, do you lose 20 minutes/hour of your life, e.g. by becoming comatose? Yes, I do realise that's what happens to those who can only see US broadcast TV.

The free app mpv allows seeking with a buffer if you're too impatient to wait for a whole recording. You can either start it paused and go do other things for a few minutes to build up the buffer or just pause it and do something else once the ads come, then skip through the ads once you're back.

[DDunfield]

Most people have forgotten (or never knew), but we used to have licensing for broadcast receivers here in Canada. I believe it ended sometime in the 50's.

I still have one tucked into the back of a old floor model receiver. (photo attached)

Dave

[madires]

Germany has a pretty awful system. Every office, car and flat is basically obligated to pay that tax, regardless of whether they have a TV or radio or not. It's extortion.

It's a fee, not a tax.

[madires]

That is part of the rationale why the German system was changed. It used to be "you pay when you own a working TV", which implied potential visits by inspectors. (Who did not have a legal right to enter your premises, IIRC, but could be pushy.) It was changed to a "per household fee" a few years back, where you pay a fixed fee per household, regardless of whether you own a TV or not.

There was also a reduced "radio only" fee. The change to "per household" got rid of the inspectors, but it was actually a hidden mark-up, same fee but more payers. They didn't lower the fee accordingly. BTW, the total sum is about 8 to 9 billion Euros a year.

[tggzzz]

Does your television have a fast forward button?

When you press it, do you lose 20 minutes/hour of your life, e.g. by becoming comatose? Yes, I do realise that's what happens to those who can only see US broadcast TV.

The free app mpv allows seeking with a buffer if you're too impatient to wait for a whole recording. You can either start it paused and go do other things for a few minutes to build up the buffer or just pause it and do something else once the ads come, then skip through the ads once you're back.

You are, presumably deliberately, missing the point and avoiding the question.

[KaneTW]

Germany has a pretty awful system. Every office, car and flat is basically obligated to pay that tax, regardless of whether they have a TV or radio or not. It's extortion.

It's a fee, not a tax.

Same deal really. Unless you can somehow opt out of it.