What if you can't get close enough to detect my TV from your van?
Our Enforcement Officers may use a hand-held detection device instead. This measures both the direction and the strength of a TV signal, making it easy for us to locate TV receiving equipment in even the hardest to reach places.
Thanks for that, I honestly didn't see it..
Hidden away under "Detector Vans", who'd have guessed it.
As I said I while back. There are probably plenty of homes that could have, but do not want, a network connection.
For this to work they would have to pay an ISP every month in addition to their "licence" fee.
Tough. If they want TV, they'll need a network connection. The BBC doesn't spend £177m+ a year on it's online activities just so a few luddites can ignore them. It and CE makers don't spend good money sticking network connections into their PVR's, Freesat STB's probably Freeview HD and definetly Canvas boxes for luddites to do nothing with those either.
Its the future dammit, like it or not!
Anyway, non-licence payers are expected to contact the BBC on demand and at their expense, why should non-TV households be discriminated against now?
This would simply ensure equality, and everyone talks to Aunty.
Tough. If they want TV, they'll need a network connection. The BBC doesn't spend £177m+ a year on it's online activities just so a few luddites can ignore them. It and CE makers don't spend good money sticking network connections into their PVR's, Freesat STB's probably Freeview HD and definetly Canvas boxes for luddites to do nothing with those either.
Its the future dammit, like it or not!
Anyway, non-licence payers are expected to contact the BBC on demand and at their expense, why should non-TV households be discriminated against now?
This would simply ensure equality, and everyone talks to Aunty.
So what goes up the network connection to validate that the household has a licence?
So what goes up the network connection to validate that the household has a licence?
A digital version of your licence. You must have some thoughts of your own, otherwise why mention only a few bytes of data just a few short posts ago? Alternatively..
What you do is make sure your licence is clearly visible to the webcam connected to the TV you'll be watching. If you do not have sufficient space, holding the licence at chest level, facing the screen will be an acceptable alternative.
If the TV detector fails to identify a valid licence at any point, your viewing may be interrupted until it can once again detect a valid licence. In addition, a loud siren will sound to help our enforcement team locate you. They will automatically be notified after 20 seconds.
Thank you for your patience, now enjoy the show!
Love,
Aunty.
Watching you, watching us. It's all in the database!
A digital version of your licence. You must have some thoughts of your own, otherwise why mention only a few bytes of data just a few short posts ago? Alternatively..
What you do is make sure your licence is clearly visible to the webcam connected to the TV you'll be watching. If you do not have sufficient space, holding the licence at chest level, facing the screen will be an acceptable alternative.
If the TV detector fails to identify a valid licence at any point, your viewing may be interrupted until it can once again detect a valid licence. In addition, a loud siren will sound to help our enforcement team locate you. They will automatically be notified after 20 seconds.
Thank you for your patience, now enjoy the show!
Love,
Aunty.
Watching you, watching us. It's all in the database!
Tough. If they want TV, they'll need a network connection. The BBC doesn't spend £177m+ a year on it's online activities just so a few luddites can ignore them. It and CE makers don't spend good money sticking network connections into their PVR's, Freesat STB's probably Freeview HD and definetly Canvas boxes for luddites to do nothing with those either.
Its the future dammit, like it or not!
Anyway, non-licence payers are expected to contact the BBC on demand and at their expense, why should non-TV households be discriminated against now?
This would simply ensure equality, and everyone talks to Aunty.
I have an idea.
The BBC becomes an ISP and supplies anyone buying a licence with a free 2MB internet connection.
The BBC becomes an ISP and supplies anyone buying a licence with a free 2MB internet connection.
They tried that once before, but had to shut it down. For a long while, the webpage stayed online showing something like £20 or more for a month for 512K broadband.. I suspect that stayed there more due to their internet guru's sense of humour than anything else though.
It's also hinted at extending it's rule I mean role in Digital Britain by keeping the cash and becoming an ISP again. But the BBC is a content provider, not a telco or network provider.
But to invoke the evasion prevention method he proposes involves enabling subscription. So, adding the 5.1% to his figure presupposes that the evaders would become subscribers. Even the most optimistic "pro-beebies" wouldn't expect to get 100% subscription, even 94.9% might seem "hopeful"!
K
Fair point. Makes you wonder how many would subscribe to the BBC if it was optional.
A workable solution where the payment is based on households.
Why households? Should a single occupancy houshold pay the same as a family of 4+?
Why not base it on ability or willingness to pay instead?
Of course breaking the household link may also prevent 'innocent' viewers being prosecuted, but then the current law and process isn't really interested in justice, only efficiency.
A digital version of your licence. You must have some thoughts of your own, otherwise why mention only a few bytes of data just a few short posts ago? Alternatively..
What you do is make sure your licence is clearly visible to the webcam connected to the TV you'll be watching. If you do not have sufficient space, holding the licence at chest level, facing the screen will be an acceptable alternative.
If the TV detector fails to identify a valid licence at any point, your viewing may be interrupted until it can once again detect a valid licence. In addition, a loud siren will sound to help our enforcement team locate you. They will automatically be notified after 20 seconds.
Thank you for your patience, now enjoy the show!
Love,
Aunty.
Watching you, watching us. It's all in the database!
sure - but did you ever say what you would say to all the people who complain that they shouldn't have to contribute to the BBC if they never watch the BBC?
Why households? Should a single occupancy houshold pay the same as a family of 4+?
Why not base it on ability or willingness to pay instead?
Of course breaking the household link may also prevent 'innocent' viewers being prosecuted, but then the current law and process isn't really interested in justice, only efficiency.
We were discussing managing the licence fee using encryption. You seem to have moved away from that.
We were discussing managing the licence fee using encryption. You seem to have moved away from that.
Well, you seem to be suggesting that would be too difficult, complicated, expensive, inconvenient etc. Plus there'd be all those upgrades needed for old devices. So that, along with mass subscription seems to be a non-starter no?
So HD content. Content providers want that protecting, the BBC won't encrypt it because people think that may lead to subscription by the back door. Seems that view may be incorrect, and it may not be a problem.
Well, you seem to be suggesting that would be too difficult, complicated, expensive, inconvenient etc. Plus there'd be all those upgrades needed for old devices. So that, along with mass subscription seems to be a non-starter no?
So HD content. Content providers want that protecting, the BBC won't encrypt it because people think that may lead to subscription by the back door. Seems that view may be incorrect, and it may not be a problem.
Oh yes it is still a problem.
Encryption is a non starter in the short term, but things could be in place within 10+ years.
I still don't think it is a practical solution compared to general taxation, it would still be far more complex and expensive etc, but I never underestimate the ability of governments to make stupid and incorrect decisions!
Encryption is a non starter in the short term, but things could be in place within 10+ years.
I disagree. I think it's needed within the next couple of months and a decision made now. Namely to protect HD content.
I still don't think it is a practical solution compared to general taxation, it would still be far more complex and expensive etc, but I never underestimate the ability of governments to make stupid and incorrect decisions!
Kind of agree. It's also not just about protecting the legacy broadcasters, but also about enabling more choice and services on DTT post DSO. Currently there's not really enough capacity, but post DSO and post DVB-T2, there'd be room for more channels. Allowing some premium channels may then make sense and be attractive to customers.
Currently there's not really enough capacity, but post DSO and post DVB-T2, there'd be room for more channels. Allowing some premium channels may then make sense and be attractive to customers.
You keep missing the point that there isn't enough ad revenue to fund more FTA channels.
You keep missing the point that therefore you are talking about subscription channels.
You keep missing the point that most people choose freeview because they don't want to pay for subscription channels.
You keep missing the point that most who want premium subscription services can access sky, virgin and maybe soon canvas.
I disagree. I think it's needed within the next couple of months and a decision made now. Namely to protect HD content.
Kind of agree. It's also not just about protecting the legacy broadcasters, but also about enabling more choice and services on DTT post DSO. Currently there's not really enough capacity, but post DSO and post DVB-T2, there'd be room for more channels. Allowing some premium channels may then make sense and be attractive to customers.
Soon all content will be HD.
Didn't people worry about copying CDs when they first came out?
Comments
Thanks for that, I honestly didn't see it..
Hidden away under "Detector Vans", who'd have guessed it.
Tough. If they want TV, they'll need a network connection. The BBC doesn't spend £177m+ a year on it's online activities just so a few luddites can ignore them. It and CE makers don't spend good money sticking network connections into their PVR's, Freesat STB's probably Freeview HD and definetly Canvas boxes for luddites to do nothing with those either.
Its the future dammit, like it or not!
Anyway, non-licence payers are expected to contact the BBC on demand and at their expense, why should non-TV households be discriminated against now?
This would simply ensure equality, and everyone talks to Aunty.
What would I need one of those for? Anyway, encourage it to be via credit card. Those debits are far harder to cancel.
So what goes up the network connection to validate that the household has a licence?
A digital version of your licence. You must have some thoughts of your own, otherwise why mention only a few bytes of data just a few short posts ago? Alternatively..
What you do is make sure your licence is clearly visible to the webcam connected to the TV you'll be watching. If you do not have sufficient space, holding the licence at chest level, facing the screen will be an acceptable alternative.
If the TV detector fails to identify a valid licence at any point, your viewing may be interrupted until it can once again detect a valid licence. In addition, a loud siren will sound to help our enforcement team locate you. They will automatically be notified after 20 seconds.
Thank you for your patience, now enjoy the show!
Love,
Aunty.
Watching you, watching us. It's all in the database!
So licence number, CAM card, STB ID?
But the STB is next door!
Your design please.
I have an idea.
The BBC becomes an ISP and supplies anyone buying a licence with a free 2MB internet connection.
And connection is.. ?
That'll be £119m a year please. Will take cash, cheque, cut or uncut 1c diamonds..
They tried that once before, but had to shut it down. For a long while, the webpage stayed online showing something like £20 or more for a month for 512K broadband.. I suspect that stayed there more due to their internet guru's sense of humour than anything else though.
It's also hinted at extending it's rule I mean role in Digital Britain by keeping the cash and becoming an ISP again. But the BBC is a content provider, not a telco or network provider.
A workable solution where the payment is based on households.
Fair point. Makes you wonder how many would subscribe to the BBC if it was optional.
Why households? Should a single occupancy houshold pay the same as a family of 4+?
Why not base it on ability or willingness to pay instead?
Of course breaking the household link may also prevent 'innocent' viewers being prosecuted, but then the current law and process isn't really interested in justice, only efficiency.
sure - but did you ever say what you would say to all the people who complain that they shouldn't have to contribute to the BBC if they never watch the BBC?
Iain
which in turn makes you wonder how many people would *subscribe* to any public service *if* it was optional.
Iain
We were discussing managing the licence fee using encryption. You seem to have moved away from that.
Well, you seem to be suggesting that would be too difficult, complicated, expensive, inconvenient etc. Plus there'd be all those upgrades needed for old devices. So that, along with mass subscription seems to be a non-starter no?
So HD content. Content providers want that protecting, the BBC won't encrypt it because people think that may lead to subscription by the back door. Seems that view may be incorrect, and it may not be a problem.
Which has what to do with broadcasting?
Oh yes it is still a problem.
Encryption is a non starter in the short term, but things could be in place within 10+ years.
I still don't think it is a practical solution compared to general taxation, it would still be far more complex and expensive etc, but I never underestimate the ability of governments to make stupid and incorrect decisions!
I disagree. I think it's needed within the next couple of months and a decision made now. Namely to protect HD content.
Kind of agree. It's also not just about protecting the legacy broadcasters, but also about enabling more choice and services on DTT post DSO. Currently there's not really enough capacity, but post DSO and post DVB-T2, there'd be room for more channels. Allowing some premium channels may then make sense and be attractive to customers.
Why are you so worried about protecting HD content?
Do you own the rights to any?
The copy protection method proposed by the BBC is acceptable to the rights holders, so why are you so concerned?
BTW when I said 10 years I was referring to a reasonable time frame to get everybody using encryption / MPEG4 DVB T2 capable boxes.
You keep missing the point that there isn't enough ad revenue to fund more FTA channels.
You keep missing the point that therefore you are talking about subscription channels.
You keep missing the point that most people choose freeview because they don't want to pay for subscription channels.
You keep missing the point that most who want premium subscription services can access sky, virgin and maybe soon canvas.
Soon all content will be HD.
Didn't people worry about copying CDs when they first came out?