Tv Licence

[digidude]

I undertand your argument mate, but you don't have to have a TV. Nobody has to pay the license fee.

have you ever tried to tell them that you havent got a telly so you dont need a license?

tv licensing authorities have NEVER, EVER, been granted a warrant for entry into a premises, every one of their prosecutions are secured on an admission of guilt, they have no right of entry, no matter what they tell you, you can even phone the police on them for refusing to leave your property and for intimidating you, they are a normal joe

 

[PrickLocater]

Whilst that site looks to be American I'm having trouble finding the source of my assertion that the BBC maintains the TV transmitters so I'll retract that (for now ).

It's British and I think you'll find the Pay TV side of freeview is done via SDN

http://www.itvplc.com/itv/news/releases/pr2005/2005-04-27/

They are, however, paying for the digital upgrade to over 1,000 TV transmitters (source: http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051190), so perhaps I'm confusing my facts?

No the government Ie TV Licence money has to be spent to upgrade them because it's the government pushing for the digital switchover

"Those countries"? France and Germany are both more populous than the UK, and they have to suffer both a TV licence and advertising on stations funded by the licence. Admittedly the fee has to go futher as more companies have a slice of the pie. Check the distribution map for TV funding in Western Europe on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence (even though there are vast amounts of misinformation on wikipedia the map is drawn up from referenced information in the main text).

Did you not read what I said about wiki and valid source information ? Eitherway the Yanks don't have a TV Licence and the Aussies don't have one and they have much better tv in my opinion it's just so annoying that a small minority over here insists that we subsidise them

But I fear the BBC will want either a flat rate for all internet connections, irrespective of speed, or will want to charge based on total bandwidth used, regardless of what its used for (games, p2p, newsgroups etc).

Oh when they've finished pumping their internet side of things they'll insist the government does this for them even though the vast majority of the public don't want it

 

[PrickLocater]

I undertand your argument mate, but you don't have to have a TV. Nobody has to pay the license fee.

Excuse me but why should I be without a TV just because I don't want anything to do with the Anti British, Anti Western, biased to hell BBC ?

 

[PrickLocater]

have you ever tried to tell them that you havent got a telly so you dont need a license?

tv licensing authorities have NEVER, EVER, been granted a warrant for entry into a premises, every one of their prosecutions are secured on an admission of guilt, they have no right of entry, no matter what they tell you, you can even phone the police on them for refusing to leave your property and for intimidating you, they are a normal joe

Just withdraw any implied right of access away and it's legal

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,152.msg517.html#msg517

 

[AT&T]

have you ever tried to tell them that you havent got a telly so you dont need a license?

Yes I have, many times. My wife's a property developer so we often have houses that have no TV. We've never had any problems.

 

[AT&T]

Excuse me but why should I be without a TV just because I don't want anything to do with the Anti British, Anti Western, biased to hell BBC ?

Easy, tiger!

The point was about choice. You rightly said I had a choice whether to have Sky, I said you've got a choice whether to have a TV...that's all. I know some people who haven't got TV's and they seem perfectly happy.

 

[karym6]

Your presuming to know a lot and giving Wiki as a source makes it even worse. The BBC made 7500 edits on that site alone and we all know what they'll say to defend it

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3255702.ece

So what? I dont think the BBC need to defend anything to us - they need to defend it to the government that makes the provisions for them.

When it comes to the TV License, there will always be a split. I pay it and personally, dont mind. Whether or not other people choose to pay it, I dont care - however to get to that point you need to have made an informed decision, and this simply cannot be made by some people saying "I dont like paying it just because". Hopefully, a thread like this can educate people as to the merits and demerits of paying for a TV license, of course the need for such a license is a totally different thread for the future.

I also understand that there are some people who will say it is not fair that some should be allowed to get away with it, as this may increase the total cost of the license. This may be true - but afterall, most people here are trying to get something for nothing

 

[PrickLocater]

Easy, tiger!

The point was about choice. You rightly said I had a choice whether to have Sky, I said you've got a choice whether to have a TV...that's all. I know some people who haven't got TV's and they seem perfectly happy.

The choice should be if YOU want the BBC then you should pay for it via subscription and everyone else can decide if they either want to watch FREEview for FREE or pay for Sky/Cable. Your option is a little nazi like to me.

 

[karym6]

The choice should be if YOU want the BBC then you should pay for it via subscription and everyone else can decide if they either want to watch FREEview for FREE or pay for Sky/Cable. Your option is a little nazi like to me.

Thats a bit much, choosing to pay the TV license doesnt seem very nazi-like to me - especially given that the Nazi party were a nationalist socialist government. The TV would have been free.

 

[PrickLocater]

So what? I dont think the BBC need to defend anything to us - they need to defend it to the government that makes the provisions for them.

The BBC is proven to be abusing it's position and you say so what ? Sorry but my view hasn't changed about you and the BBC it's stronger now if anything.

When it comes to the TV License, there will always be a split.

Not much of a split because nearly every public opinion poll shows a clear 75% majority want an end to it

however to get to that point you need to have made an informed decision, and this simply cannot be made by some people saying "I dont like paying it just because".

It's not the first time you've tried passing yourself off as being better than everyone else here karym6 and I for one know the reality.

I also understand that there are some people who will say it is not fair that some should be allowed to get away with it, as this may increase the total cost of the license. This may be true - but afterall, most people here are trying to get something for nothing

The cost of the TV Licence will keep going up because the BBC will keep wasting hundreds of millions every year which so they can keep getting more. There's a reason why the BBC wont allow government auditors in to check the spending

 

[PrickLocater]

Thats a bit much, choosing to pay the TV license doesnt seem very nazi-like to me - especially given that the Nazi party were a nationalist socialist government. The TV would have been free.

Excuse me but the Nazis used propganda to grow and they also had the SS as enforcers now many who don't agree with the BBC TV Licence see the similarities. I also pointed this out because it always and I mean always makes pro TV Licence people turn red

 

[AT&T]

It's a good job it's not up to us, we'd never agree!

I can understand the arguments put forward on both sides. I think everything has its pros and cons, but overall the quality programming on the BBC is worth the downside. I believe we should work on minimizing the problems rather than scrap the whole idea. If we scrapped everything that had a downside we'd never achieve anything. Maybe I'm one of those 'dreamers' John Lennon wrote about that wants a better world! ;-)

 

[PrickLocater]

It's a good job it's not up to us, we'd never agree!

I can understand the arguments put forward on both sides. I think everything has its pros and cons, but overall the quality programming on the BBC is worth the downside. I believe we should work on minimizing the problems rather than scrap the whole idea. If we scrapped everything that had a downside we'd never achieve anything. Maybe I'm one of those 'dreamers' John Lennon wrote about that wants a better world! ;-)

But surly if the BBC is so great and the programming so good people would be queuing up to subscribe to it and they'd make a killing. At the same time the majority in this country would be free from them and it would be at this point the fans of the BBC would come back down to reality

 

[little_pob]

It's British

I've no doubt that you're right, but there is nothing on the site that suggests they have UK interests. Even the about us page only lists US and Australia operations: http://www.crowncastle.com/about-us/all-operations-and-subsidiaries.aspx

No the government Ie TV Licence money has to be spent to upgrade them because it's the government pushing for the digital switchover

As that money would have otherwise gone to the BBC I think your splitting hairs there. It could have come from somewhere else. e.g. auction off the bandwidth but post date its availablity to allow the money to be spent on upgrading the equipment to digital.

Did you not read what I said about wiki and valid source information?

Did you look at the map? As that was all I was drawing you attention to. It illustrates better the break down of how TV is funded in Europe without having to repeat the information verbatim. It also shows that the UK isn't the only country in the world to have a TV licence. Anyway, all the information I pulled from wikipedia had external references (therefore was a valid, if concise, source in this case).

Eitherway the Yanks don't have a TV Licence and the Aussies don't have one

Never said they did, I only mentioned western Europe.

it's just so annoying that a small minority over here insists that we subsidise them

The only people I've found insisting that we subsidise the BBC is the BBC. Whilst some pay the licence becasue they do like the BBC's programming, others just pay becasue it is against the law not to. I am more than willing to admit that if it was optional I wouldn't pay.

It seems that the people who state they enjoy the BBC's programing that get accused of trying to force everyone else to subsidise thier viewing. If sky, virgin media, itv et al got a slice, proportional to their audience, would you pay the (probably increased) licence? Or is it that other countries, like the US and Oz (to use your examples), can do without it so we should be able to also?

Of of interest do you realise that there is no limit to the number of adverts per hour in the US, and 22 minutes of adverts per hour depending on the time of day/program is not uncommon? The UK is restricted to about 12.5 minutes of advertising per hour of programming. And that the huge product placement deals the US programs enjoy (e.g. Ford in 24, Honda in Heroes) are illegal in the UK.

However, to argue both sides for a second , AFAIK BBC America does run adverts. So its not like the BBC would have to go in completely blind... even if the markets are slightly different.

Oh when they've finished pumping their internet side of things they'll insist the government does this for them even though the vast majority of the public don't want it

I haven't seen any stats on support/opposition for a PC tax, but like most taxes I can imagine its not a popular idea.

 

[TBC]

lets get real lol, its state owned tv paid for by us using a ridiculous licence fee system. its daylight robbery, the programming is 90% complete poo. and the whole of the bbc seems to be run more like my local council office i.e "lets fukcin waste it all and hope no one notices"...
BUT
the law says we got to pay it so many of us do, it piece of mind that no idiot is gonna be knocking on the door wanting to see me licence lol.

tbc

 

[karym6]

I think Little_pob hit the nail on the head really. I mean, I pay the license because I have to. I dont watch much stuff on BBC, but when I do its things like national football (England/Scotland matches) and again for the rugby. In fact, if there is any big national event, I will watch the BBC (such as rememberance day). So, I do make use of the service they provide.

As for comparing it to Nazis, Choice. Just becuase you do not pay for the license does not make all of us stupid for paying it. As TBC mentions, why waste time worrying about a £1000 fine when you can have peace of mind for the things you do watch?

 

[muskrat]

when i did a small servicing corse it was explained how the detectors work, and while you're right about the oscillator crystal in the tuner, its the high voltages for the CRT that amplifies and gives off the signature that they can recieve.

they know the local frequencies of the aerial channels, they work out what the couple of frequencies floating about will be, and go looking for them, so this will only work IF you are watching an analogue channel via an aerial

while an LCD has high voltage for the backlights its not enough for the signal to be broadcast, theyd have to be within a few inches of the tv to detect it, watching an STB, sky digibox, playstation or whatever connected via scart lead gives off the same signal (from CRT) as a PC screen, so the days of the 'detector' will be 100% over after the digital switchover

Thanks Digi, very informative, and I feel a bit daft now, of course the rf generated by a high voltage coil would be far easier to detect.

Many thanks for putting me right.

Regards

Muskrat

 

[PrickLocater]

I've no doubt that you're right, but there is nothing on the site that suggests they have UK interests. Even the about us page only lists US and Australia operations: http://www.crowncastle.com/about-us/all-operations-and-subsidiaries.aspx

I am right and you can check the net to see for yourself

I
As that money would have otherwise gone to the BBC I think your splitting hairs there. It could have come from somewhere else. e.g. auction off the bandwidth but post date its availablity to allow the money to be spent on upgrading the equipment to digital.

Why do those who like the BBC think they should have a god given right to screw everyone else blind ?

Did you look at the map? As that was all I was drawing you attention to. It illustrates better the break down of how TV is funded in Europe without having to repeat the information verbatim. It also shows that the UK isn't the only country in the world to have a TV licence. Anyway, all the information I pulled from wikipedia had external references (therefore was a valid, if concise, source in this case).

I'm not interested in european TV and I doubt that many people here are

Never said they did, I only mentioned western Europe.

Back to what I said about language

It seems that the people who state they enjoy the BBC's programing that get accused of trying to force everyone else to subsidise thier viewing. If sky, virgin media, itv et al got a slice, proportional to their audience, would you pay the (probably increased) licence?

The TV Licence is already out of control (£3.5 BILLION this year alone and rising) so I'd hope that never happens

Or is it that other countries, like the US and Oz (to use your examples), can do without it so we should be able to also?

Why not have the choice after all according to those who like the BBC it's smashing, super & great I mean who wouldn't want to subscribe to that lol

Of of interest do you realise that there is no limit to the number of adverts per hour in the US, and 22 minutes of adverts per hour depending on the time of day/program is not uncommon?

Actually it's around the same as the UK but they have their ads spread out differently and the proof is in the shows running times You see this is another one I've seen a hundred times before played by the BBC people

The UK is restricted to about 12.5 minutes of advertising per hour of programming. And that the huge product placement deals the US programs enjoy (e.g. Ford in 24, Honda in Heroes) are illegal in the UK.

Back to the above and ask me if I really care about adverts

However, to argue both sides for a second , AFAIK BBC America does run adverts. So its not like the BBC would have to go in completely blind... even if the markets are slightly different.

And again the BBC abuses it's position by making shows for BBC World. You see they've started putting shows on their own channels instead of selling them to the highest bidder!

I haven't seen any stats on support/opposition for a PC tax, but like most taxes I can imagine its not a popular idea.

Do you honestly believe your BBC is really a public service ?

 

[karym6]

Do you honestly believe your BBC is really a public service ?

In all honesty, yes.

 

[PrickLocater]

I think Little_pob hit the nail on the head really. I mean, I pay the license because I have to. I dont watch much stuff on BBC, but when I do its things like national football (England/Scotland matches) and again for the rugby. In fact, if there is any big national event, I will watch the BBC (such as rememberance day). So, I do make use of the service they provide.

The shows you've mentioned would still be on TV if the BBC TV Licence went. It would just mean the BBC can't abuse it's position and outbid the other channels

As for comparing it to Nazis, Choice. Just becuase you do not pay for the license does not make all of us stupid for paying it.

I never said it did. Many people pay because they just don't want the hassle, are afraid or just not well informed enough about getting round it.

As TBC mentions, why waste time worrying about a £1000 fine when you can have peace of mind for the things you do watch?

The £1,000 fine is a maximum the average seems to be around £130 and thats with court costs.