UK TV Licence

[james_s]

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.

I have a TV and watch it frequently, but it is 100% streaming and discs, I have never bothered to hook up an antenna and never had cable or satellite for as long as I've lived here.

Even if cable was free I wouldn't want it. Every channel has a stupid logo constantly hovering in the corner now which triggers my OCD and makes it unwatchable. Worse yet are the animated banners that come up during a show, and then there's the ever increasing ad load to the point that (in the US at least) reruns are often sped up slightly and/or have bits cut out in order to squeeze in another commercial. It's all garbage.

[tggzzz]

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.

I have a TV and watch it frequently, but it is 100% streaming and discs, I have never bothered to hook up an antenna and never had cable or satellite for as long as I've lived here.

Even if cable was free I wouldn't want it. Every channel has a stupid logo constantly hovering in the corner now which triggers my OCD and makes it unwatchable. Worse yet are the animated banners that come up during a show, and then there's the ever increasing ad load to the point that (in the US at least) reruns are often sped up slightly and/or have bits cut out in order to squeeze in another commercial. It's all garbage.

Yes, US broadcast (and satellite) TV is barely worth watching. I have less experience of US cable TV.

But, since the thread is about one broadcaster in the UK, what's the relevance of your local experience?

[james_s]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Doesn't quite work like that. The police are sometimes called by the inspectors because the householder was being threatening.

Again, people getting caught due to their own stupidity. If they simply refused to open the door there's nothing that they can do

[German_EE]

EEVBlog members may find the following link interesting when it comes to this subject:

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

This guy has been getting a letter a month since 2006 from the TV licensing people and if you look carefully at the letters themselves you can see that they are churned out by a computer and no human is involved.

As for the 'Detector Vans' these are a scam. I saw one parked overnight and the blinds were not drawn across the windows. There were no equipment racks or desks of fancy equipment, just an empty space, although the fake antenna did look impressive. Think of it this way, is the first I.F. of your TV receiver 45 MHz, 21 MHz or maybe something else? They SHOULD be looking for a UHF signal +/- the I.F. frequency but without knowing what frequency a TV set uses the system will be impossible to use. Add to that modern sets where everything is screened and they don't stand a chance.

[james_s]

I didn't realize they had phony detector vans, that's pretty funny.

[mikeselectricstuff]

By law anyone retailing TVs must report name & address of buyer-that's the 'detector van'.

[LaserSteve]

As an American, I'd like to thank UK Citizens for the following that have made the US Public Broadcasting System affiliate in my neck of the woods the "Go To" TV channel for our family:

Fawlty  Towers
Black Adder
Mr. Bean
Are you Being Served?
Dad's Army
Anything Helen Mirren..
Anything Lucy Worsley  (Love that snarky attitude)
Sherlock
Inspector Morse
Inspector Lewis
Mystery
Father Ted,
Wallender
RED DWARF
Victoria
Allo Allo
Keeping Up Appearances
All the Science Stuff from Oxford Films Ltd.
Downton Abby
And the first two seasons of Balleykissangel.

Your taxpayer money was well spent..

You Aussies, I'd like to thank for :
A Place to Call Home
The beautiful and sweet Dr. Lisa  in Pet Vets
800 Words

The Poles here get a thanks for
Wataha / The Border


The Swedish get a Thanks for:
Beck
The Bridge

And the Germans get a thanks for
Commissar Rex
Cobra 11, (love those car chase scenes/ explosions for ANY excuse,)

You Dutch, I will some day forgive for the Plague of anything Endemol has created for the US Market.
Especially "Big Brother".

I apologize for our forcing Survivor, NCIS, and Law and Order onto the world stage.. 


Steve

[tsman]

By law anyone retailing TVs must report name & address of buyer-that's the 'detector van'.

They don't do that anymore. The requirement to report TV sales was part of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 which was repealed in 2013.

[KJDS]

I pay £10 a month for the BBC, and about £60 a month for Sky so I can have another 500 channels with (almost) nothing on.

[tggzzz]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

Sigh. That comment is also "a bit of a tangent"

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

[tggzzz]

As an American, I'd like to thank UK Citizens for the following that have made the US Public Broadcasting System affiliate in my neck of the woods the "Go To" TV channel for our family:

Glad to be of service

But the US also provides many excellent programmes, in amongst the dross.

But we are well aware the UK provides much dross alongside the good programmes. Count yourself lucky that you don't get the "opportunity" to see it!

I can't comment on TV from the OP's country, because I'm not aware I've ever seen any. There may be a reason for that, and it may be behind his bewilderment that we cherish the BBC (for all its faults).

[ebastler]

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

Right. It's not a watermark, it's a "DOG":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2011/04/digital-on-screen-graphics-res.shtml

 

[bd139]

I love their bullshit excuse as well. It’s so they can source where the TV rips came from.

[ebastler]

But with the arrival of 16:9, they have moved the DOG further to the left. That's something, isn't it? 

[james_s]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

Sigh. That comment is also "a bit of a tangent"

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

Well the number of BBC sourced shows I've seen that have a logo in the upper-left corner of the screen suggests otherwise.

[tggzzz]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

Sigh. That comment is also "a bit of a tangent"

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

Well the number of BBC sourced shows I've seen that have a logo in the upper-left corner of the screen suggests otherwise.

But they weren't being transmitted on UK terrestrial channels, were they.... The channels paid for by the licence fee (see thread title).

[MT]

I have known of the existence and requirement but never really thought about it. Now I have just seen several videos on Youtube of police and "inspectors" entering people's homes to check for TVs. I just can't wrap my head around this. I can't understand it but that is because in all of the countries I have lived in none had this.

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. And, really, police go into people's homes to search for TVs?
Does this exist in other countries?

Sweden just recently abolished the TV "reciever" licence, (payment was for the receiver part not the entire TV) for a tax based one.The reason was fewer and fewer watched the national broadcast also known among citizens as the socialist propaganda canal (Sweden has private owned broadcasts as well). Gov including all the different parties from left to right (except SD) voted for a tax based TV because as was said to the unwashed grey masses important to preserve democracy. Yes you heard right. Want more gov based BS?

The chance that a resident is not paying their TV tax is considered a crime of such level that it requires police visits to investigate? Really? Judges issue warrants on suspicion that someone has a TV?

When TV was licence fee based Gov had Detection/bearing vans out on the land to try nail people who had a unpaid TV receiver, they ring on your door asks if you have a TV receiver, you reply you dont ,they ask if they may enter you apartment/house, you reply they may not, they reply we will come back later, you reply they are welcome back. End result they never show up again.

Point are, law prohibits them to enter your home without homeowners consent, nor would police ever bother , eventually proposed hypothesized crime just to small, yet your allowed to own a TV receiver for use to computer playing games they mumblyingly say, I.e you not watching Gov broadcast. So the whole process is pointless waste
if you know the law as a citizen.

When the detector van people (scoobydoo) came to visit me once i hadn't had a TV for decades, so why did they came?
Well, they dont drive around by chance  no, what they do is looking into a list of people who haven't pay'd TV licence
for a while and then drop by to pursue their so called case.

Sometimes the make score most times they just a waste of taxpayers money after all they are just part of the current regime in power propaganda outlet, often in Sweden the retarded totalitarian socialists (dont think for a second the totalitarian right wingers haven't used TV as their propaganda outlet when they where
in power). TV is just EVIL fake news!
 
So Sweden went from ashes to fire instead of ashes to water, i.e ad paid TV as they do in commie China.

[Bud]

That seems counter-intuitive to me. I'd thought the brainwashers should provide wide open free broadcast of the "materials" to reach and influence as many sheep as possible and even pay the sheep to consume it.

[0culus]

It's to artificially prop up an unsustainable business.

[vealmike]

It's to artificially prop up an unsustainable business.

No, it isn't. You're not UK based so, unless you're an ex-pat you can be forgiven for getting that wrong.

The BBC is a business, in that it does generate revenue from exporting both programmes it has made and programme concepts. The BBC's biggest earner is Top Gear. Both from the sale of the program made here and from franchising the concept to other countries.

Top Gear franchises include Australia, Germany, Italy, Russia, France, Korea & China. The UK show had 350 million viewers at one point.

But despite this, the BBC is a not for profit organisation. It is committed  to providing an unbiased viewpoint and producing excellent original content.
It is not funded through advertising, an important part of its impartiality. Instead it receives money raised from the license fee and from selling content.

So the license fee is not supporting an unsustainable business, it is funding an apolitical, educational, news and entertainment service that has no equal anywhere else the world.

[Zero999]

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere.

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

[tggzzz]

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere.

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.

[1] a couple of decades ago someone noted that in the future info that went over wires would transfer to wireless, and info that was wireless would become wired. A pretty good prediction!

[madires]

At least you can opt out. We are forced to pay for the public-service broadcasting and its "high quality" productions. Despite claiming to be independent and so on they deliver mostly entertainment for the elderly and have clearly political preferences. The newscasts are simplified for primary-school pupils and a lot is omitted. On the positive side they broadcast much less ads and rubbish/trash than free commercial TV programs. I barely watch TV.

[coppice]

[1] a couple of decades ago someone noted that in the future info that went over wires would transfer to wireless, and info that was wireless would become wired. A pretty good prediction!

That was a pretty easy prediction 2 decades ago. If it were made 4 decades ago it would have been very insightful.