all tv channels should be encrypted and you should have to enter your tv licence number into your box it to view tv.
if you do not want to buy a licence then thats fine you cannot watch live tv. thats the simple way to do it and would not take a genius to solve, topup tv had a way to enter a number to view certain xxx channels, sky could easily impliment it on their system
tv licence is outdated and people should choose whether to buy it or not and not be hounded, but having a system to enter licence number to your box/tv would solve all things
Do you have to buy two licences, for twice the money, if you have two TVs in the house? How about families with three or four TVs because they have lots of kids? Will they have to buy a licence for each?
Or if you allow one licence to activate up to five TVs then how would you stop people living alone from selling their code to friends for their TVs so they can evade the licence?
Who is going to pay for all these set top boxes?
There is an argument that the current TV licence system is outdated. That's why Ireland and Germany have both just decided to make the TV licence mandatory for every household, whether they have a TV or not. You have to pay, just as you have to pay for schools, libraries, parks, the NHS, train subsidies etc etc whether you use those or not.
all tv channels should be encrypted and you should have to enter your tv licence number into your box it to view tv.
if you do not want to buy a licence then thats fine you cannot watch live tv. thats the simple way to do it and would not take a genius to solve, topup tv had a way to enter a number to view certain xxx channels, sky could easily impliment it on their system
tv licence is outdated and people should choose whether to buy it or not and not be hounded, but having a system to enter licence number to your box/tv would solve all things
Sky charge £258 per year for a basic 35 channels, Freeview equivalent £145. Want to watch another channel in another room? One Sky multi-room subscription costs an additional £135 per year, Freeview it costs nothing.
To enjoy Sky TV in another room, you'll need a Sky Multiscreen subscription for every room you want to watch Sky TV in.
an average family could pay over £400 a year just to be able to watch programmes in other rooms. A grand total of £663 a year and how much of that goes to Sky Sport which basic subscribers would not have access to.
Over 90% of TV viewers watch BBC output in a week, probably in a month it's 100%. I look forward to you telling the British public you are going to put up their cost of watching TV to £200 a year for no additional content.
Sky charge £258 per year for a basic 35 channels, Freeview equivalent £145. Want to watch another channel in another room? One Sky multi-room subscription costs an additional £135 per year, Freeview it costs nothing.
an average family could pay over £400 a year just to be able to watch programmes in other rooms. A grand total of £663 a year and how much of that goes to Sky Sport which basic subscribers would not have access to.
Over 90% of TV viewers watch BBC output in a week, probably in a month it's 100%. I look forward to you telling the British public you are going to put up their cost of watching TV to £200 a year for no additional content.
Quite, the only way the TV licence could be described as "outdated" would be because it doesn't bring in as much money to the broadcaster per viewer really!
Sky charge £258 per year for a basic 35 channels, Freeview equivalent £145. Want to watch another channel in another room? One Sky multi-room subscription costs an additional £135 per year, Freeview it costs nothing.
an average family could pay over £400 a year just to be able to watch programmes in other rooms. A grand total of £663 a year and how much of that goes to Sky Sport which basic subscribers would not have access to.
Over 90% of TV viewers watch BBC output in a week, probably in a month it's 100%. I look forward to you telling the British public you are going to put up their cost of watching TV to £200 a year for no additional content.
I am not sure I would say that FREEVIEW is an 'equivalent' of the base Sky package ! even more so after about 11pm !:)
I am not sure I would say that FREEVIEW is an 'equivalent' of the base Sky package ! even more so after about 11pm !:)
I agree Freeview is superior.
If people go down the subscription route TV viewing will actually become dearer. If Sky are anything to go by an extra £132 a year to watch another channel in another room.
An additional Virgin non record box costs £78 a year to watch TV in another room or £138 a year if you want a TiVO box.
The BBC has paid out £100,000 in the last five years to 2,500 people who were harassed by tv license inspectors. That's ten people every week! Something's going badly wrong.
Ofcom, the media regulator, said that the sanction, the largest it has ever imposed on a broadcaster, “reflects not only the seriousness of ITV’s failures but also their repeated nature”.
The fine for “institutionalised failure within ITV” comes six months after a report found that viewers of hit shows such as Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway, Ant and Dec’s Gameshow Marathon and Soapstar Superstar had wasted almost £8 million on competitions they had no chance of winning.
Ofcom imposed the biggest fine - £3 million - on Ant and Dec Saturday Night Takeaway after producers routinely rigged competitions by picking winners on the basis of geographical convenience.
Ant and Dec’s Gameshow Marathon was fined £1.2 million for choosing winners who sounded “lively”, while Soapstar Superstar received the same penalty after producers ignored the viewers’ votes and picked winners before the lines had actually closed.
Ofcom said that the fine, which dwarfs the previous record of £2 million imposed on GMTV, would have been higher had ITV not taken immediate steps to rectify the problems and set up a £7.8 million fund to compensate viewers.
So £7.8 million compensation plus £5.6 million fine plus the earlier $2 million fine...
And you're outraged over the BBC having to pay out £100k?
I'm surprised you didn't start by declaring, 'I know my rights!'.
You really have a problem don't you? Are you still annoyed with the BBC for cancelling Dr. Who or was it when Eldorado was elbowed, maybe it was Muffin the Mule that caused you distress.
One thing I've learnt watching Motorway Cops, Traffic Cops etc is that those drivers who moan the most and complain about police regularly stopping them turn out not to have no car insurance and road tax because they are disqualified.
You have the same attitude that experience has taught me as tv licensing, i.e. if you complain about the licence you must be watching tv illegally.
And yet all that is down to the government who are the ones who make the law and order the BBC to enforce it, just as the Post Office enforced the licence for the first fifty odd years of the radio and then TV licence.
Funny how you blame the BBC for Capita's actions even though they are a subcontractor when the BBC is 'merely' a subcontractor for the government and every penny collected goes straight to the government.
If you can hold the BBC responsible for Capita's actions (which is reasonable) then you must accept that it is the government responsible for the BBCs actions. They make the BBC administer the licence and they make the rules.
That might be an argument if the BBC was neutral about the licence. But as you'll know, the BBC puts a great deal of effort and time into lobbying for the licence.
You have the same attitude that experience has taught me as tv licensing, i.e. if you complain about the licence you must be watching tv illegally.
How much contact have you had with TV Licensing, for me it's just a yearly reminder and receipt for payment. By the way Capita is a company.
Have TV licensing taken you to court?
Were you traumatised when young by being made to watch episodes of Eldorado and have never forgiven the BBC? Maybe it was episodes of Crossroads on ITV and you blame the BBC for not having alternative programming?
That might be an argument if the BBC was neutral about the licence. But as you'll know, the BBC puts a great deal of effort and time into lobbying for the licence.
I suspect capita do as well. Just as they lobbied for things like the Congestion Charge. So in both cases it is a subcontractor doing a job on behalf of someone else, even if they lobbied and support that system. The BBC subcontract the BBC and the BBC subcontract Capita. There is no difference. Yet the anti-BBC people blame the BBC solely and refuse to accept that it is the government who made the rules, made the law and ordered the BBC to enforce the licence.
That might be an argument if the BBC was neutral about the licence. But as you'll know, the BBC puts a great deal of effort and time into lobbying for the licence.
Department of work & pensions(DWP) - Capita admin their money....common denominator?
Who runs ATOS?
Atos was formed from Unum, a company chased out of the United States and classified as "an outlaw company".
Atos were then hired by the Labour Party to do work capability assements, reckoned to waste a lot more money that the old system, and culpable for a lot of suffering to the sick and disabled.
Still, the newspapers are happy with this it seems, as are the politicans because they can spin it as "being tough" as hardline. Popular with the voters if they don't know the full facts.
This is one of the problems with your campaign. Whatever happens you're walking into a compulsory payment, and you'll lose the option of opting out that you have now. And the government will spin it as being better for everyone, wheras it'll probably be a lot worse in the real world.
Not to mention all the money that the existence of the BBC generates for the UK economy, the government won't allow that to be lost, but it will go to the private sector instead, so the money will just be moved around a bit, and dissapear into profits and the like.
Atos was formed from Unum, a company chased out of the United States and classified as "an outlaw company".
Atos were then hired by the Labour Party to do work capability assements, reckoned to waste a lot more money that the old system, and culpable for a lot of suffering to the sick and disabled.
Still, the newspapers are happy with this it seems, as are the politicans because they can spin it as "being tough" as hardline. Popular with the voters if they don't know the full facts.
This is one of the problems with your campaign. Whatever happens you're walking into a compulsory payment, and you'll lose the option of opting out that you have now. And the government will spin it as being better for everyone, wheras it'll probably be a lot worse in the real world.
Not to mention all the money that the existence of the BBC generates for the UK economy, the government won't allow that to be lost, but it will go to the private sector instead, so the money will just be moved around a bit, and dissapear into profits and the like.
New Zealand are well ahead of the UK & have already got shot of their TV licence, The Gestapo-like behavour of their "Officers" saw to that & the result is not at all like your prediction - much better broadcasting with more choice, than it currently is here, I understand:p
If people go down the subscription route TV viewing will actually become dearer. If Sky are anything to go by an extra £132 a year to watch another channel in another room.
An additional Virgin non record box costs £78 a year to watch TV in another room or £138 a year if you want a TiVO box.
LOL!
After midnight..shopping..tits 'n bums..or a screen that says come back at 6 or 7am !
You want to try dealing with the DWP and Atos then.....
Indeed ! after 20 years or so in severe pain and some days being unable to get out of bed, all of a sudden with no medical intervention she seems well enough to attend 'courses' !! and of course being sick is now means tested too, so the maximum any long term sick person can get (if their partner works or has savings) is 365 days, regardless how ill you are !>:(
New Zealand are well ahead of the UK & have already got shot of their TV licence, The Gestapo-like behavour of their "Officers" saw to that & the result is not at all like your prediction - much better broadcasting with more choice, than it currently is here, I understand:p
I know people who have emigrated to NZ and they love it. The single thing they didn't like and that they missed about the UK was the television. TV in NZ is crap.
Your "I understand" makes it clear you don't know the facts and just make stuff up.
If people go down the subscription route TV viewing will actually become dearer. If Sky are anything to go by an extra £132 a year to watch another channel in another room.
An additional Virgin non record box costs £78 a year to watch TV in another room or £138 a year if you want a TiVO box.
The only thing that is superior about Freeview is the extra channels like Dave, Drama etc that aren't available on Freesat.
(Even then they are not available to everyone, only those with a full freeview service rather that 'Freeview Lite').
That's why we have gone for both Freesat-from-Sky and Freeview in our house. Best of both worlds.
I know people who have emigrated to NZ and they love it. The single thing they didn't like and that they missed about the UK was the television. TV in NZ is crap.
Your "I understand" makes it clear you don't know the facts and just make stuff up.
Thanks for the insults, I know folks who live in new zealand & think the change in broadcasting is great, I also try to abide with the forum T&Cs & try not to directly insult other users of Digital spy or use foul language within my posts.
Comments
Do you have to buy two licences, for twice the money, if you have two TVs in the house? How about families with three or four TVs because they have lots of kids? Will they have to buy a licence for each?
Or if you allow one licence to activate up to five TVs then how would you stop people living alone from selling their code to friends for their TVs so they can evade the licence?
Who is going to pay for all these set top boxes?
There is an argument that the current TV licence system is outdated. That's why Ireland and Germany have both just decided to make the TV licence mandatory for every household, whether they have a TV or not. You have to pay, just as you have to pay for schools, libraries, parks, the NHS, train subsidies etc etc whether you use those or not.
Sky charge £258 per year for a basic 35 channels, Freeview equivalent £145. Want to watch another channel in another room? One Sky multi-room subscription costs an additional £135 per year, Freeview it costs nothing.
If I understand Sky's blurb correctly,
an average family could pay over £400 a year just to be able to watch programmes in other rooms. A grand total of £663 a year and how much of that goes to Sky Sport which basic subscribers would not have access to.
Over 90% of TV viewers watch BBC output in a week, probably in a month it's 100%. I look forward to you telling the British public you are going to put up their cost of watching TV to £200 a year for no additional content.
Quite, the only way the TV licence could be described as "outdated" would be because it doesn't bring in as much money to the broadcaster per viewer really!
I am not sure I would say that FREEVIEW is an 'equivalent' of the base Sky package ! even more so after about 11pm !:)
I agree Freeview is superior.
If people go down the subscription route TV viewing will actually become dearer. If Sky are anything to go by an extra £132 a year to watch another channel in another room.
An additional Virgin non record box costs £78 a year to watch TV in another room or £138 a year if you want a TiVO box.
To get the the thread back on track:
I wonder how much compensation has been paid out by ITV?
Millions of pounds.
Why not ask the viewers who ITV conned out of £10 million a year?
For which on top of compensation they had to pay out they were fined £5 million by Ofcom.
So £7.8 million compensation plus £5.6 million fine plus the earlier $2 million fine...
And you're outraged over the BBC having to pay out £100k?
You have the same attitude that experience has taught me as tv licensing, i.e. if you complain about the licence you must be watching tv illegally.
That might be an argument if the BBC was neutral about the licence. But as you'll know, the BBC puts a great deal of effort and time into lobbying for the licence.
No, I'm outraged by innocent people being hounded by a public service.
How much contact have you had with TV Licensing, for me it's just a yearly reminder and receipt for payment. By the way Capita is a company.
Have TV licensing taken you to court?
Were you traumatised when young by being made to watch episodes of Eldorado and have never forgiven the BBC? Maybe it was episodes of Crossroads on ITV and you blame the BBC for not having alternative programming?
There is a big difference. ITV knowingly and deliberately defrauded people out of money. Millions of pounds of money.
I suspect capita do as well. Just as they lobbied for things like the Congestion Charge. So in both cases it is a subcontractor doing a job on behalf of someone else, even if they lobbied and support that system. The BBC subcontract the BBC and the BBC subcontract Capita. There is no difference. Yet the anti-BBC people blame the BBC solely and refuse to accept that it is the government who made the rules, made the law and ordered the BBC to enforce the licence.
That sounds like quite good advice.
You want to try dealing with the DWP and Atos then.....
Does it? How much?
Department of work & pensions(DWP) - Capita admin their money....common denominator?
Who runs ATOS?
Atos was formed from Unum, a company chased out of the United States and classified as "an outlaw company".
Atos were then hired by the Labour Party to do work capability assements, reckoned to waste a lot more money that the old system, and culpable for a lot of suffering to the sick and disabled.
Still, the newspapers are happy with this it seems, as are the politicans because they can spin it as "being tough" as hardline. Popular with the voters if they don't know the full facts.
This is one of the problems with your campaign. Whatever happens you're walking into a compulsory payment, and you'll lose the option of opting out that you have now. And the government will spin it as being better for everyone, wheras it'll probably be a lot worse in the real world.
Not to mention all the money that the existence of the BBC generates for the UK economy, the government won't allow that to be lost, but it will go to the private sector instead, so the money will just be moved around a bit, and dissapear into profits and the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_New_Zealand
New Zealand are well ahead of the UK & have already got shot of their TV licence, The Gestapo-like behavour of their "Officers" saw to that & the result is not at all like your prediction - much better broadcasting with more choice, than it currently is here, I understand:p
LOL!
After midnight..shopping..tits 'n bums..or a screen that says come back at 6 or 7am !
yes there are a few that go through the night
Indeed ! after 20 years or so in severe pain and some days being unable to get out of bed, all of a sudden with no medical intervention she seems well enough to attend 'courses' !! and of course being sick is now means tested too, so the maximum any long term sick person can get (if their partner works or has savings) is 365 days, regardless how ill you are !>:(
I know people who have emigrated to NZ and they love it. The single thing they didn't like and that they missed about the UK was the television. TV in NZ is crap.
Your "I understand" makes it clear you don't know the facts and just make stuff up.
(Even then they are not available to everyone, only those with a full freeview service rather that 'Freeview Lite').
That's why we have gone for both Freesat-from-Sky and Freeview in our house. Best of both worlds.
Thanks for the insults, I know folks who live in new zealand & think the change in broadcasting is great, I also try to abide with the forum T&Cs & try not to directly insult other users of Digital spy or use foul language within my posts.