I hate paying for it as much as everyone else especially as I have cable so I pay a chunk for watching the tv every month anyway.
The BBC is only good for one thing and thats it website and contents which I use every day - a fairer way would be to charge for these services by subscription like everyone else does or stick adverts in there - if the likes of google can make enough revenue by doing this I'm sure the BBC can as well
Originally posted by RoostyWhich DVD players can be used to watch TV? None that I know of, unless they have a TV card [or whoojemeflops and whatchemecallits] in them; in which case they are not DVD players but TV/DVD Players. You don't need a licence to watch internet streaming - only need one for 'broadcast' TV programs and you need a TV card in your computer for that. And some sort of aerial.
As for the law I'd only guess that if you have the ability to watch telly you need a licence. I'd think that's the spirit of it (spirit : tv tax, dear me)
I think it goes that DVD players and the like have whoojemeflops and whatchemecallits in their guts that enable you to watch telly, that's why owning one means you need a licence.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveMy Panasonic DVD recorder can, for a start (70 quid from Argos, IIRC) It does digital. And it's got an RGB output for a monitor.
Which DVD players can be used to watch TV? None that I know of, unless they have a TV card [or whoojemeflops and whatchemecallits] in them; in which case they are not DVD players but TV/DVD Players. You don't need a licence to watch internet streaming - only need one for 'broadcast' TV programs and you need a TV card in your computer for that. And some sort of aerial.
As for streaming, once again http://www.kevinboone.com/tv_licence.html
The final paragraph might be interesting.
Originally posted by CauselessOneA dvd player is NOT a dvd recorder. There's a huge difference.
My Panasonic DVD recorder can, for a start (70 quid from Argos, IIRC) It does digital. And it's got an RGB output for a monitor.
As for streaming, once again http://www.kevinboone.com/tv_licence.html
The final paragraph might be interesting.
Originally posted by greenphantomThe BBC is one of the most listened to services, especially in conflict zones.
I hate paying for it as much as everyone else especially as I have cable so I pay a chunk for watching the tv every month anyway.
The BBC is only good for one thing and thats it website and contents which I use every day - a fairer way would be to charge for these services by subscription like everyone else does or stick adverts in there - if the likes of google can make enough revenue by doing this I'm sure the BBC can as well
I find it well worth the money, just to know it's there for everyone to use.
Originally posted by greenphantomWooow NO!! what's nice about the BBC is that it's free from adds. What a breath of fresh air it is to watch the news from beguning to end!!
I hate paying for it as much as everyone else especially as I have cable so I pay a chunk for watching the tv every month anyway.
The BBC is only good for one thing and thats it website and contents which I use every day - a fairer way would be to charge for these services by subscription like everyone else does or stick adverts in there - if the likes of google can make enough revenue by doing this I'm sure the BBC can as well
Well when you take into consideration the global popularity the BBC has worldwide it is obvious to me that a small subscription to view that content for everyone the world over would be fair compared to this service being funded by british tv licence payers funding.
The BBC new channel is the most watched news station as well but this is only due to SKY news and other channels being removed from some cable providers services i.e Virgin Media - If it was there still for me to watch I would pick SKY news everytime but I dont have the choice so I watch BBC news.
As I say the only thing worth the money is the website otherwise I would be more bitter than I am now for having to shell out 32 pounds every 2 months
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by RoostyActually my understanding is different:
Sorry, just realised that my post wasn't that constructive, but this is just one of those things that really gets my back up (I stay out of the religion forum).
As for the law I'd only guess that if you have the ability to watch telly you need a licence. I'd think that's the spirit of it (spirit : tv tax, dear me)
I think it goes that DVD players and t ...[text shortened]... their guts that enable you to watch telly, that's why owning one means you need a licence.
from http://www.kevinboone.com/tv_licence.html
"apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programme services..."
Basically, that would mean, you must deliberately and intentionally set out to do something, i.e. intentionally have television equipment installed for the purpose of watching television, and in actuality, actually watching it, not whether you are capable of or not, and it says after that the courts interpret it as such.
Hmm, I don't think all dvd players are capable of watching tv...for example, my laptop is capable of playing back and recording DVDs, but this does not mean I am capable of watching live TV as a result (barring supposed internet TV).
Yes but this is just an excuse to try to avoid paying a licence just the same as someone who gets a speeding ticket may say they were not driving the car when they were caught lol
People will try anything to get out of paying its human nature but we all know most people have a tv or a radio at least
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by greenphantomI disagree with your analogy, for to watch live tv on the internet, takes some effort, as I'd imagine there are very few places that could do it, but more importantly, to relate back to your analogy, it is quite easy not to break the speed limit and not get a ticket, (which is comparable to not watching TV over the internet), as has been shown by the many many drivers not getting speed tickets.
Yes but this is just an excuse to try to avoid paying a licence just the same as someone who gets a speeding ticket may say they were not driving the car when they were caught lol
People will try anything to get out of paying its human nature but we all know most people have a tv or a radio at least
To draw a better comparison, perhaps giving speed tickets to drivers capable of breaking the speed limit regardless of whether they have or not, is comparable to assuming all internet users watch streamed live television, and as such, making them getting a TV licence.
It is also noteworthy, that having a radio in itself does not mean you need a TV licence.
I agree with regards to the tv coverage as I dont watch the BBC hardly ever and only watch the news channel as there is no other channel available - this is why a subscription service for each service you use would be a fair option especially now you can watch tv content etc as well using the iplayer it makes sence to me.
But if you have to pay to watch certain channels for a fee i.e sports and film channels if your with SKY for instance but then someone outside the UK can watch the same thing for free you would fee a bit frustrated would you not?
Its fair for everyone to pay something which if on a global scale would vastly reduce the cost of a subscription as apposed to a licence and proberly mean you would only pay less than a 3rd for what you view now under the licence.
We are lucky in some ways with a free NHS service and schooling option in the UK but when someone comes to use this free service and has not contributed to it via taxes this again causes resentment - its the same for tv licences we pay the fee and a worldwide market gains a great service with everyone except britain getting it free - now thats unfair.