NB
But the very fact that you need a licence to own anything that can pick up signal (internet or otherwise) shows that any PC with a broadband connection requires a licence. The fact they've now said they're going after businesses that watch the world cup on the internet implies that they believe this to be the correct interpretation of the law as it stands. The logistics mean it'll be very hard for them to catch you either way (or maybe not - by tracking IP addresses?) but never the less it appears to be a ridiculous route to take.
What gets me as well is that some live or near-live content on the BBC website can be accessed overseas meaning that if you watch it abroad without a licence you are fine but watch it in the UK without one and you are breaking the law
They need to seperate out content that requires a licence and content that doesn't, so if you watch the recorded version of a programme or new bulletin you won't accidently watch the live version if you do not hold a licence without a warning or something.
They need to sort this out before it all gets too messy me thinks...
What gets me as well is that some live or near-live content on the BBC website can be accessed overseas meaning that if you watch it abroad without a licence you are fine but watch it in the UK without one and you are breaking the law
They need to seperate out content that requires a licence and content that doesn't, so if you watch the recorded version of a programme or new bulletin you won't accidently watch the live version if you do not hold a licence without a warning or something.
They need to sort this out before it all gets too messy me thinks...
WI
william
Founding member
Are we to infer that the internet ruling requires to anything that's a simulcast of a conventionally broadcast TV programme? E.g. the Match of the Day stream requires a license but a live video feed on the BBC News website of a press conference that News 24 may or may not be covering in full or in part does not? Or maybe its down to copyright ownership for specific broadcasts.
Or perhaps more simply -the World Cup is the first sufficiently high profile internet streaming for 'them' to care about policing? ('Them' in quotes because the BBC seemed to have outsourced all of TVL's operations to Capita etc - maybe they still take the decisions on who to target).
The other thing that seems a bit messy is the mobile TV trial all the broadcasters / mobile networks began recently.
I'm not clear what the deal is regarding watching TV on a portable device given an ordinary TV license applies to a specific address - is it just down to who owns it (if an ownership record exists, it doesn't necessarily for PAYG phones) - what are TVL going to do - approach people in the street and demand proof that they have a license?
Or perhaps more simply -the World Cup is the first sufficiently high profile internet streaming for 'them' to care about policing? ('Them' in quotes because the BBC seemed to have outsourced all of TVL's operations to Capita etc - maybe they still take the decisions on who to target).
The other thing that seems a bit messy is the mobile TV trial all the broadcasters / mobile networks began recently.
I'm not clear what the deal is regarding watching TV on a portable device given an ordinary TV license applies to a specific address - is it just down to who owns it (if an ownership record exists, it doesn't necessarily for PAYG phones) - what are TVL going to do - approach people in the street and demand proof that they have a license?
JI
Need a license to watch BBC online
Not sure if anybody has read this or not, but I have a black and white TV license, but does anybody know if that will cover it?
BBC seems a bit vague about details
Not sure if anybody has read this or not, but I have a black and white TV license, but does anybody know if that will cover it?
BBC seems a bit vague about details
NG
I think if you are watching a live stream of a BBC programme or channel on a PC via internet streaming, then it is classified - in licence terms - as the same as using a PC Tuner. The technology may be different but the result is very similar.
What is the difference between a dedicated IPTV box (like those used by HomeChoice) and a PC showing IPTV - the answer? Very little.
In the US some of the IPTV companies are already allowing for users who don't want a box, and instead use their Media Center PCs...
noggin
Founding member
marksi posted:
My understanding is that if you have a PC *with a TV TUNER* in it, then you need a licence. Windows Media Player is not a TV tuner.
I think if you are watching a live stream of a BBC programme or channel on a PC via internet streaming, then it is classified - in licence terms - as the same as using a PC Tuner. The technology may be different but the result is very similar.
What is the difference between a dedicated IPTV box (like those used by HomeChoice) and a PC showing IPTV - the answer? Very little.
In the US some of the IPTV companies are already allowing for users who don't want a box, and instead use their Media Center PCs...
DE
I don't know how it is worded in law, but this is what the TV Licensing website has to say:
Do I need a licence?
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.
"PC with a broadcast card" (presumably they mean tuner) is only given as an example of an "other device to receive or record TV programmes". Going by the above statement they can easily argue that receving a broadband streaming of a programme requires a licence.
When you buy a TV, VCR, DVD recorder, Set-top box, PC with broadcast (TV) card, or TV card the retailer is required "under The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (as amended)" to pass your details to TVL. I wonder how long it will be before there is another amendment requiring ISPs (or anyone selling or providing you with a broadband modem) to pass on your details? It may not even require an amendment for them to demand the information.
Do I need a licence?
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.
"PC with a broadcast card" (presumably they mean tuner) is only given as an example of an "other device to receive or record TV programmes". Going by the above statement they can easily argue that receving a broadband streaming of a programme requires a licence.
When you buy a TV, VCR, DVD recorder, Set-top box, PC with broadcast (TV) card, or TV card the retailer is required "under The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (as amended)" to pass your details to TVL. I wonder how long it will be before there is another amendment requiring ISPs (or anyone selling or providing you with a broadband modem) to pass on your details? It may not even require an amendment for them to demand the information.
SA
The licence fee is a national scandal. How on earth the BBC continues to justify an inflation-thrashing amount for its programmes is disgraceful.
The thing is, the BBC is absolutely terrified of losing its cash cow (aka the public), because the know damn well that given the choice, many people would rather do without the BBC than have to cough-up over �130 a year for a licence.
I hope this charter renewal (2006) will be the last, and the BBC can seek out new sources of finance. It's completely unfair for other broadcasters, and more importantly those on low incomes to have to suffer the BBC's bloated dominance.
The BBC is far too big. Do we really need niche radio stations such as 1Xtra, Asian Network and BBC7 (all of which have abysmal listening figures) and other channels such as CBBC & Cbeebies (I haven't a clue why both those channels can't be joined together).
For those lucky enough to get a job with the BBC are laughing. They are paid up to five times the industry standard for doing the same job they would do at ITV. It's those people and the overpaid suits at the BBC that are terrified of losing their easy income.
If the government refuses to abolish the licence fee, then at least it should be means tested (i.e. the amount you pay is brought in line with your income) and complimented with a paid subscription for some of it's more exclusive services.
The BBC right now is awash with money. They're constantly pleading poverty (£3,000,000,000 a year!), but in actual fact they have so much money they don't quite know what to spend it on. It has dozens of local radio stations, entities such as the BBC R&D and BBC Monitoring. Both of which are completely unnecessary. The decision to move several of it's services to the north is simply another way to use up some of the excess cash reserves they have.
Do not believe for one second that the BBC is underfunded. It is overfunded by an astronomical scale, and yet the government keeps on agreeing to increase the licence fee.
The thing is, the BBC is absolutely terrified of losing its cash cow (aka the public), because the know damn well that given the choice, many people would rather do without the BBC than have to cough-up over �130 a year for a licence.
I hope this charter renewal (2006) will be the last, and the BBC can seek out new sources of finance. It's completely unfair for other broadcasters, and more importantly those on low incomes to have to suffer the BBC's bloated dominance.
The BBC is far too big. Do we really need niche radio stations such as 1Xtra, Asian Network and BBC7 (all of which have abysmal listening figures) and other channels such as CBBC & Cbeebies (I haven't a clue why both those channels can't be joined together).
For those lucky enough to get a job with the BBC are laughing. They are paid up to five times the industry standard for doing the same job they would do at ITV. It's those people and the overpaid suits at the BBC that are terrified of losing their easy income.
If the government refuses to abolish the licence fee, then at least it should be means tested (i.e. the amount you pay is brought in line with your income) and complimented with a paid subscription for some of it's more exclusive services.
The BBC right now is awash with money. They're constantly pleading poverty (£3,000,000,000 a year!), but in actual fact they have so much money they don't quite know what to spend it on. It has dozens of local radio stations, entities such as the BBC R&D and BBC Monitoring. Both of which are completely unnecessary. The decision to move several of it's services to the north is simply another way to use up some of the excess cash reserves they have.
Do not believe for one second that the BBC is underfunded. It is overfunded by an astronomical scale, and yet the government keeps on agreeing to increase the licence fee.
SA
This whole area is very grey indeed. I doubt much of the BBC's claims regarding internet broadcasts would stand up in court. There is a distinction in that if you are watching broadcasts which are also simultainiously being broadcast on television, then yes, you are legally required to have a colour licence.
However, if you are watching archived broadcasts on the internet, then you don't need a licence. The fact that internet broadcasts are delayed by up to 2 minutes (due to digital processing and streaming limitations), some would argue thay they are non-live, and therefore be classed as archive broadcasts. I'm sure this issue will come under considerable scrutiny in the near future.
And no Noggin, it's not simple. None of the BBC's propaganda is ever simple.
noggin posted:
Isn't this quite simple?
If you are using your PC to watch internet broadcast TV streaming in colour - then your PC is acting as a colour TV receiver and thus requires a colour licence.
If you are using your PC to watch internet broadcast TV streaming in colour - then your PC is acting as a colour TV receiver and thus requires a colour licence.
This whole area is very grey indeed. I doubt much of the BBC's claims regarding internet broadcasts would stand up in court. There is a distinction in that if you are watching broadcasts which are also simultainiously being broadcast on television, then yes, you are legally required to have a colour licence.
However, if you are watching archived broadcasts on the internet, then you don't need a licence. The fact that internet broadcasts are delayed by up to 2 minutes (due to digital processing and streaming limitations), some would argue thay they are non-live, and therefore be classed as archive broadcasts. I'm sure this issue will come under considerable scrutiny in the near future.
And no Noggin, it's not simple. None of the BBC's propaganda is ever simple.
PE
You clearly don't have kids
Yes. Because neither of them have ever done anything useful.
I agree that this nonsense over the world cup is ridiculous and suspect it's coming from Capita rather than the BBC, however as far as the licence fee goes I'm still a great supporter.
Pete
Founding member
Sascha posted:
CBBC & Cbeebies (I haven't a clue why both those channels can't be joined together).
You clearly don't have kids
Quote:
entities such as the BBC R&D and BBC Monitoring
Yes. Because neither of them have ever done anything useful.
I agree that this nonsense over the world cup is ridiculous and suspect it's coming from Capita rather than the BBC, however as far as the licence fee goes I'm still a great supporter.
IS
The thing is, the BBC is absolutely terrified of losing its cash cow (aka the public), because the know damn well that given the choice, many people would rather do without the BBC than have to cough-up over �130 a year for a licence.
Many, maybe, but not everyone.
The BBC is far too big. Do we really need niche radio stations such as 1Xtra, Asian Network and BBC7 (all of which have abysmal listening figures)
Listening figures aren't important, it's public service broadcasting. We do need The Asian Network and 1Xtra - asian people and fans of black music are license payers too. They're exactly what the bbc should be doing - providing programming for minorities.
BBC7 is great, and very cheap to run. Would you prefer all that money spent on radio drama and comedy go to waste by sitting on dusty shelves for ever more?
If every new channel on a new transmission format was closed due to low audiences then we'd have no broadcasting at all. Audience for all these will rise as digital expands - BBC7 in particular is driving DAB takeup quite significantly
Because they serve diffrent audiences
For those lucky enough to get a job with the BBC are laughing. They are paid up to five times the industry standard for doing the same job they would do at ITV.
Don't you believe it. As someone who has recently left the beeb for a job outside I can tell you that it mostly isn't the case. The pay for the majority of the ordinary staff there is lower or on a par with what's available in the commercial sector. Even the higher management could earn a lot more doing equivalent powered jobs in indie companies - and with more bonuses (no profit sharing at the beeb!)
People work for the BBC for the prestige and job security... it certainly isn't the money
BBC Monitoring is paid for by the government (it's part of the World Service) but is far from un-necessary. until commercial radio could provide the service that BBC local does they are very necesary, and without R&D we wouldn't have many innovations that we take for granted today
I'm not saying that there isn't some waste at the BBC and that everything is perfect. And don't think that the whole thing is swilling in money, there are some parts of the BBC which are really struggling for cash. The way to save money isn't to close down services
Sascha posted:
The thing is, the BBC is absolutely terrified of losing its cash cow (aka the public), because the know damn well that given the choice, many people would rather do without the BBC than have to cough-up over �130 a year for a licence.
Many, maybe, but not everyone.
Quote:
The BBC is far too big. Do we really need niche radio stations such as 1Xtra, Asian Network and BBC7 (all of which have abysmal listening figures)
Listening figures aren't important, it's public service broadcasting. We do need The Asian Network and 1Xtra - asian people and fans of black music are license payers too. They're exactly what the bbc should be doing - providing programming for minorities.
BBC7 is great, and very cheap to run. Would you prefer all that money spent on radio drama and comedy go to waste by sitting on dusty shelves for ever more?
If every new channel on a new transmission format was closed due to low audiences then we'd have no broadcasting at all. Audience for all these will rise as digital expands - BBC7 in particular is driving DAB takeup quite significantly
Quote:
and other channels such as CBBC & Cbeebies (I haven't a clue why both those channels can't be joined together).
Because they serve diffrent audiences
Quote:
For those lucky enough to get a job with the BBC are laughing. They are paid up to five times the industry standard for doing the same job they would do at ITV.
Don't you believe it. As someone who has recently left the beeb for a job outside I can tell you that it mostly isn't the case. The pay for the majority of the ordinary staff there is lower or on a par with what's available in the commercial sector. Even the higher management could earn a lot more doing equivalent powered jobs in indie companies - and with more bonuses (no profit sharing at the beeb!)
People work for the BBC for the prestige and job security... it certainly isn't the money
Quote:
. It has dozens of local radio stations, entities such as the BBC R&D and BBC Monitoring. Both of which are completely unnecessary.
BBC Monitoring is paid for by the government (it's part of the World Service) but is far from un-necessary. until commercial radio could provide the service that BBC local does they are very necesary, and without R&D we wouldn't have many innovations that we take for granted today
I'm not saying that there isn't some waste at the BBC and that everything is perfect. And don't think that the whole thing is swilling in money, there are some parts of the BBC which are really struggling for cash. The way to save money isn't to close down services