41–50 of 50 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afaik they don't have to prove you watch your TV to make you pay. If your TV has a tuner you have to pay as you can receive BBC channels (even if you don't watch them.
Not the case any more, though I think it used to be. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ8/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sympathise - there's nothing to beat BBC Four - but Strictly Come Dancing is a massive moneyspinner as a format and helps pay for the quality.
Then just sell the format abroad and not show it in the UK :-)
As a Brit, I wish they would ditch all the "me-too" rubbish they do to ape commercial TV - Soap Operas, Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice etc, and concentrate on the quality stuff such documentaries, arts etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My question would be, how would they know you don't have a TV if you don't tell them? You may find this hard to believe, but they drive around in a high-tech van and monitor the kinds of signals that emanate from a TV set. If they detect the electronic signature of a TV set emanating from a house paying no license fee, or if they see an off-air antenna, they begin legal proceedings. What I said above was easier in…
The principle behind their operation is reasonable, basically just regular old Van Eck phreaking. However I thought the general consensus is that they do not actually do this, and that it is simply a rather useful myth.
Agreed. I would guess the most economical thing to do is publish pictures of the van online and describe its features. Actually driving it around is probably not nearly as cost-effective.
It'd be nice if they at least removed some of the restrictions iPlayer (DRM, country).
iPlayer shouldn't be assumed to be 'free' to use. The BBC is paid for by the UK license fee-payers (the majority of the population) - there's no reason why other countries should be able to access it. Not to say that I'd be against charging a subscription for overseas access though.
They could offer content directly to users in other countries for a nominal fee or per access fee and make more returns than they do offering up content to one provider or another for a lesser overall fee. Would be interesting and if done right would make piracy redundant. Could even add in the aspect of gaining viewing credits by filling in marketing information. ANything that makes the TV fee in the UK more palatab…
It'd be nice if they at least removed some of the restrictions iPlayer (DRM, country).
iPlayer shouldn't be assumed to be 'free' to use. The BBC is paid for by the UK license fee-payers (the majority of the population) - there's no reason why other countries should be able to access it. Not to say that I'd be against charging a subscription for overseas access though.
They could offer content directly to users in other countries for a nominal fee or per access fee and make more returns than they do offering up content to one provider or another for a lesser overall fee. Would be interesting and if done right would make piracy redundant. Could even add in the aspect of gaining viewing credits by filling in marketing information. ANything that makes the TV fee in the UK more palatab…
I always assumed this was part of the reason they developed iplayer. A trial run in order to offer the same thing overseas at a cost.
If it was not on there agenda initialy then your certainly right nowadays or at least it would be silly not to look at that opertunity to tap into overseas content base directly. Though they would need to have people login as currently I would hate to think how many VPN to get a UK'ish IP to use the service currently.
Interesting times ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just threw my nastygrams in the bin for 10 years. Didn't do me any harm in the long run. I did have some guy knocking on my door about it. He was "removed" from my property forcefully as he was trespassing. Nothing came of it. I have a television now (for the children) but that is it. When they're gone, it's going as well.
I don't know why this was downvoted - technically a private company harassing you is trespassing and I am within my rights to remove him. (also I didn't have a television for 10 years).
The nomenklature have got it in for you. Here, have some upvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why this was downvoted - technically a private company harassing you is trespassing and I am within my rights to remove him. (also I didn't have a television for 10 years).
> I don't know why this was downvoted The nomenklature have got it in for you. Here, have some upvotes.