Youtube !

[Droogs]

It used to be a licence that allowed you to operate a device capable of receiving radio transmissions and outputing it as audio. Then after TV started you could choose to have either a radio licence or a TV licence to operate a device capable of receiving tv transmissions and letting you view them. The licence for TV was available eventually in 2 versions one for Black and white (cheaper) and colour. In the 80's is just became a tv licence and now it is to allow you to operate any device (doesn't matter if you watch live or not) capable of receiving a real time broadcast through any medium including the internet and allowing you to watch. I avoided paying a licence from 98 until 2010 as I only watched things that I downloaded from sites such as hulu etc. Cant remember the first one I used. But since UK broadcasters started using the web to stream live/realtime broadcasts you have technically needed to have a licence for any capable device. They have sent inspectors round 3 times to see me, the last in 2015 and not bothered me since

 

[D_W]

bizarre....though I vaguely recall having someone tell me that over the air TV isn't free everywhere. I'm guessing that license fee funds the BBC and is just the way it was set up originally (vs. being ad funded originally as it was here when radio tycoons realized they could place ads on TV, too). Pay TV didn't exist here until about 40 years ago and I remember as a kid, it was an exotic thing "your parents have CABLE??!!!????!"

 

[D_W]

oh my! I figured the fee would be the equivalent of $15 or so.

 

[artie]

But since UK broadcasters started using the web to stream live/realtime broadcasts you have technically needed to have a licence for any capable device.

I don't believe that is correct.
A license is not required to own equipment capable of receiving and or displaying live tv broadcasts.
A license is required to watch or record said transmissions.
That was what TV Licensing told me.
If you show me I'm wrong. I will not hesitate to apologise and will be grateful for the education.

 

[artie]

bizarre....though I vaguely recall having someone tell me that over the air TV isn't free everywhere. I'm guessing that license fee funds the BBC and is just the way it was set up originally (vs. being ad funded originally as it was here when radio tycoons realized they could place ads on TV, too). Pay TV didn't exist here until about 40 years ago and I remember as a kid, it was an exotic thing "your parents have CABLE??!!!????!"

The uk license fee isn't that expensive for what you get I suppose.
The problem I have have is that the BBC get it all, but we have to pay for all the other channels which don't benefit from it.

 

[Droogs]

As the inspector told me the licence is to allow you to operate a device capable of

as lifted from TV Licencing web site

A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television equipment to receive (i.e. watch or record) TV programmes, as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer. .

 

[Droogs]

The BBC have for the last 12 years been trying to have the law amended to include a phrase such as "operating a personal computer and or a smartphone" which I hope they never succeed as I only use a computer to watch things on, although it has a very large computer monitor

 

[powertools]

The BBC have for the last 12 years been trying to have the law amended to include a phrase such as "operating a personal computer and or a smartphone" which I hope they never succeed as I only use a computer to watch things on, although it has a very large computer monitor

And that without doubt is how all this will end.

 

[D_W]

The uk license fee isn't that expensive for what you get I suppose.
The problem I have have is that the BBC get it all, but we have to pay for all the other channels which don't benefit from it.

does this make the BBC commercial free, then? It would be lovely if you could skip the BBC if you chose and just purchase the other channels.

 

[Droogs]

It is free of paid for adverts and up until around 10 years ago their programs were around 10 - 15 minutes longer in length. many in my family have scriptwriting experience with them and the commercial tv stations and hated doing BBC work as it was a lot longer to write for. 50 - 55 minutes etc rather than 40 for commercial tv. Now however they have programs the same lengrth as commercial tv and fill the space with adverts for their own programming and claims for how important they are to the nation. meh

 

[artie]

does this make the BBC commercial free, then? It would be lovely if you could skip the BBC if you chose and just purchase the other channels.

It's commercial free in the sense that there isn't 20 minutes out of every hour pushing washing powder.
BUT there is loads of product placement and government propaganda which the license payer pays for.

 

[artie]

From the TV Licensing site.



You’ve always needed a TV Licence to watch TV channels ‘live’ (as they are broadcast). And to watch BBC programmes on iPlayer. But things are changing constantly in the world of TV.
More online services are now scheduling live TV programmes. That means it can be hard to keep track of when you need a TV Licence, and when you don’t.
Make sure you’re not missing anything
Before you tell us you don’t need a TV Licence, we just want to make sure there’s nothing you’ve missed, or may miss in the future.
Do you or anyone in your household ever:

Watch, or record TV programmes live on any channel
e.g. ITV, E4 or Dave - not just the BBC?

Watch or record TV programmes live on any paid-for TV service
e.g. Sky, Virgin or BT?

Watch or stream TV programmes live on an online TV service
e.g. ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV or Sky Go?

Watch or record TV programmes live on foreign channels, via satellite or online streaming?

Download or watch any BBC programmes
on iPlayer?

This applies
to any devices
you may use.

Phone

Computer

Television

Tablet

Console

Answered YES to any of the above?
You do need a TV Licence. For just 43p a day you can enjoy the full live TV experience across all channels and TV services - and BBC programmes on iPlayer.
Buy a TV Licence
Answered NO to all of the above?
Please let us know you don’t need a licence here.

 

[D_W]

It's commercial free in the sense that there isn't 20 minutes out of every hour pushing washing powder.
BUT there is loads of product placement and government propaganda which the license payer pays for.

That sounds like PBS here, but PBS gets some government money and then badgers viewers the rest of the time. They try to sell goofy stuff (like marginal musicians or B-acts, and nutrition gurus). It used to be that they'd do this about one month out of each 6, you'd tune in and during that month, you couldn't figure out WTF was on at one time because they'd be stumping and showing people manning phones. They still do that even though I doubt many people call vs. doing it online. It's really odd.

But, now that we have a .x format for channels, PBS has five separate channels and at least one is ALWAYS fundraising. Of course, now they claim that running the five channels costs a lot more so they need more money. It's never-ending begging and they boast about being commercial free, but it's as you say, propaganda about how important it is.

It is generally more honest and objective than typical over-the-air channels, but sometimes they show bias and then go back to kayfabe.

 

[D_W]

The concept that if you stream a sporting event on a computer live (even if it's somewhere else in the world) that you're watching live TV and you should give them $250 equivalent is very bizarre, though, and the roaming revenue agents sounds like the eastern bloc.

 

[D_W]

"what have you been watching comrade?"

(well sir, I heard that the TV stations use a 7 second delay to avoid airing profanity, so I figured that it's not live TV. There was also some lag on the international digital feed that provided the soccer game, so also not live. Thanks!).

 

[billw]

oh my! I figured the fee would be the equivalent of $15 or so.

In reality it's not bad for three broadcast TV stations, plus one that's stream only (BBC3 which is by far the best one of the lot), and all the radio stations, and access to the iPlayer to watch stuff on demand. The BBC's commercial arm supports a lot of services too.

To give you something to compare it to, I fork out £25 a month to Sky just to watch 11 channels of sport, and even then one of them is Sky Sports NFL which is about as interesting as watching paint dry.

 

[kinverkid]

Rather than use ad blockers I watch YT on the Brave browser. No adverts.

Been using Brave for over a year now. No adverts or unwanted trackers. Changed over from Chrome when I checked to see if my local Aldi had an impact driver in stock then got suggestions for impact drivers from Amazon.

 

[D_W]

In reality it's not bad for three broadcast TV stations, plus one that's stream only (BBC3 which is by far the best one of the lot), and all the radio stations, and access to the iPlayer to watch stuff on demand. The BBC's commercial arm supports a lot of services too.

To give you something to compare it to, I fork out £25 a month to Sky just to watch 11 channels of sport, and even then one of them is Sky Sports NFL which is about as interesting as watching paint dry.

The cable TV over here is expensive because of the nature of directly paying and then the back and forth negotiation between the popular channels and the cable companies. My father is a sports fanatic, and my mother watches a lot of old movies. Between the two of them, they have about 400 pointless channels of entertainment for $150 a month.

But they're retired.

I pay for nothing but netflix (no cable), and nobody here watches PBS, so their constant begging falls on deaf ears.

 

[D_W]

(most of us feel about like you do with the NFL, except we're usually looking for the NFL only to find that one of the networks was too cheap to buy game coverage and instead shows us soccer. They've been trying for years to get people to watch soccer over here, but almost nobody does. It must be far cheaper on some kind of promotional arrangement for them to carry games - nobody is watching it as far as viewership goes.

I would expect few people in England would be interested in the NFL - if you don't grow up playing football and watching it, it's pointless to watch - american football that is.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I always remember a TV critic here years ago saying he'd finally got a satellite dish. It was brilliant - he used to be bored to death by five channels, and now he was bored to death by sixteen.

I cannot for the life of me see the fascination with American football ........ or baseball. or basketball. That goes for football, cricket, golf and ice hockey as well, mind. I'd sooner stick pins in my eyes than watch cricket or football - I just die a little more every minute.