[Steve_Middlling]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

How could switching between netflix and lovefilm be seen as lying

Well that is the point of my thread, I am not lying so why did that tv man visit me?

[DragonQ]

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

Since I got my new faster broadband I have unlimited things to watch and I choose where I watch, but I have noticed that when I switch between netflix and lovefilm they do not send somebody to see if I am lying.

Well obviously not - neither Netflix nor LoveFilm requires a TV Licence.

Also, I'm not saying they do it now, I'm just saying it'll be an easy way to check these things in the future.

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

Well that is the point of my thread, I am not lying so why did that tv man visit me?

So do you think HMRC shouldn't do periodic checks of people who pay no taxes to make sure they aren't earning above the personal allowance?

Your reasoning makes no sense.

[Steve_Middlling]

Originally Posted by SnrDev

Try seeing what happens if you don't pay, claim you don't need to then attempt to watch something on those two delivery platforms. Due to the different nature of those beasts, if you don't pay up front you don't access the service. The TVL model is locked into a 90 year old system where the broadcast is freely distributed and the onus is on the end user to recognise that they are receiving a benefit by watching those broadcasts.

Fail on Mr Middling's part for the weak analogy. Similar fail on the BBC and govt departments for sticking with an outmoded payment model for too long, by the looks of things, although in reality it's the best we've got for now and is likely to stick with us for some time.

Well that is it exactly NF and LF are much younger than ITV, channel 4, channel 5 and bbc etc, but they can do it.

[Steve_Middlling]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

Well obviously not - neither Netflix nor LoveFilm requires a TV Licence.

Also, I'm not saying they do it now, I'm just saying it'll be an easy way to check these things in the future.



So do you think HMRC shouldn't do periodic checks of people who pay no taxes to make sure they aren't earning above the personal allowance?

Your reasoning makes no sense.

What? I am talking about TV nothing to do with HMRC

Netflix and lovefilm still want paying they just don't call it a licence.

[NewExample]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

When we make the gradual shift to IPTV it will be fairly simple for ISPs to know who is watching live TV and who isn't, and this information can obviously be relayed to the TV Licensing Company (or whatever it's called) if they can get legal clearance to do this.

Aha that old cauker, never gonna happen. People have said it for years. iPlayer for example is just a bonus to television, not a replacement. Millions of tv's exist, people have one or more in kitchens, front room, bedrooms etc, and most people (exceptions on here) watch normal TV. Either Sky, Freeview, Virgin, whatever. IPTV is not reliable for most people, most can't get a video on YouTube to stream for more than 2 minutes. Never mind a whole TV show. Get in the real world. It won't be in our lifetime that it won't be around. It's survived for 90 years. It can do a lot more. So annoying. Aside from all that, the BARB system is inaccurate in my opinion, as it doesn't count individual sets or everyone that watches. Just because they said only 2.3m watched Big Brother doesn't mean they did. People that post in Broadcasting (inc me) are not the general public, they are people who have an interest in broadcasting and know a lot about it or wish to know more about it. Normal people just get on with it and turn it on, either watch or leave on in background (mine are always on when I'm in the house) for company or put a music channel or the radio on.

[Hieronymous]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

When we make the gradual shift to IPTV it will be fairly simple for ISPs to know who is watching live TV and who isn't, and this information can obviously be relayed to the TV Licensing Company (or whatever it's called) if they can get legal clearance to do this.

It's called the BBC:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/...emark=2479504A

[katywil]

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

In the last few years I have become really sick of paying for rubblsh TV I do not watch, so I went onto the TVL website to tell them I no longer need their services. All is good I think and carry on about my life.... BUT then I return home to find a red letter from a tv inspector person saying "you do not have a tv licence so I came to find out why"

So why do I have to let a stranger inside my house to check I am not lying?

Why can't they just detect my telly if they think I am watching it?

please ignore everyone who says you have to let them into your house. you dont. tvl people have no more right to enter anyones house than the milkman has or the postman. just return their letters having ticked the box to say you do not require a licence. if anyone calls. dont open the door or window. ignore them. they have to prove you are guilty of whatever . they cant do that if you dont let them in.

[Hieronymous]

I'd be wary of responding to them in any way.

When I first became Legally Licence Free (LLF) I replied to their first enquiry letters (as the initial ones were). This set in motion a whole chain of events that I found extremely distateful.

Others have had similar/different experiences.

[DragonQ]

Originally Posted by Hieronymous

It's called the BBC:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/...emark=2479504A

Alrighty then.

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

What? I am talking about TV nothing to do with HMRC

I was making an analogy. Why do you think it's strange that the BBC want to make sure that people without a TV Licence don't need one? If they didn't, a huge number of people would just not pay the TV Licence.

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

Netflix and lovefilm still want paying they just don't call it a licence.

Yes you pay for the services but you don't need a TV Licence to use them.

Originally Posted by NewExample

Aha that old cauker, never gonna happen. People have said it for years. iPlayer for example is just a bonus to television, not a replacement. Millions of tv's exist, people have one or more in kitchens, front room, bedrooms etc, and most people (exceptions on here) watch normal TV. Either Sky, Freeview, Virgin, whatever. IPTV is not reliable for most people, most can't get a video on YouTube to stream for more than 2 minutes. Never mind a whole TV show. Get in the real world. It won't be in our lifetime that it won't be around. It's survived for 90 years. It can do a lot more. So annoying. Aside from all that, the BARB system is inaccurate in my opinion, as it doesn't count individual sets or everyone that watches. Just because they said only 2.3m watched Big Brother doesn't mean they did. People that post in Broadcasting (inc me) are not the general public, they are people who have an interest in broadcasting and know a lot about it or wish to know more about it. Normal people just get on with it and turn it on, either watch or leave on in background (mine are always on when I'm in the house) for company or put a music channel or the radio on.

Your argument is flawed in many ways. Firstly, it is already happening, so saying it "will never happen" is obviously absurd. There are IPTV channels on Freeview and TalkTalk, and BT are planning to do the same thing later this year. Secondly, a change in delivery method has no impact on usability - people can still "just get on with it and turn it on".

Lastly, you are not considering future technical advances at all. Your seemingly pulled-out-of-the-air assertion that "most can't get a video on YouTube to stream for more than 2 minutes" doesn't sound convincing to me. Broadband speeds are increasing all the time and the FTTC network is now even larger than Virgin Media's cable network, which will allow IPTV to flourish. Things move forward at an almost exponential rate - yes terrestrial broadcasts have been around for years but how often did it change in that time? For most of it, not at all. The switch from 405 to 625 lines was pretty much it until the late 90s, and look what has changed since then: entirely digital, 1st & 2nd generation digital broadcast standards, 2nd & 4th generation video codecs, high definition and surround sound. However, the available spectrum can be used in quite a few ways and TV is one that, eventually, won't need it, so it can be freed for other things.

The move to IPTV is pretty much inevitable and it will not take another 90 years. Please "get in the real world".

[lotrjw]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

When we make the gradual shift to IPTV it will be fairly simple for ISPs to know who is watching live TV and who isn't, and this information can obviously be relayed to the TV Licensing Company (or whatever it's called) if they can get legal clearance to do this.

I posted a thread about this very topic a few days ago:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1806198

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by DragonQ

Your argument is flawed in many ways. Firstly, it is already happening, so saying it "will never happen" is obviously absurd. There are IPTV channels on Freeview and TalkTalk, and BT are planning to do the same thing later this year. Secondly, a change in delivery method has no impact on usability - people can still "just get on with it and turn it on".

Lastly, you are not considering future technical advances at all. Your seemingly pulled-out-of-the-air assertion that "most can't get a video on YouTube to stream for more than 2 minutes" doesn't sound convincing to me. Broadband speeds are increasing all the time and the FTTC network is now even larger than Virgin Media's cable network, which will allow IPTV to flourish. Things move forward at an almost exponential rate - yes terrestrial broadcasts have been around for years but how often did it change in that time? For most of it, not at all. The switch from 405 to 625 lines was pretty much it until the late 90s, and look what has changed since then: entirely digital, 1st & 2nd generation digital broadcast standards, 2nd & 4th generation video codecs, high definition and surround sound. However, the available spectrum can be used in quite a few ways and TV is one that, eventually, won't need it, so it can be freed for other things.

The move to IPTV is pretty much inevitable and it will not take another 90 years. Please "get in the real world".

I've argued the same many times before. I think that IPTV will be the future of tv and that all set will be built with wifi receivers the same way that they were once all built with aerials.

However. . . I do agree that we shouldn't extrapolate our own experience to the rest of the country. The fact that we are even posting on this site suggests that we are not the 'norm'. Internet provision in many areas of the country is extremely poor and the example given of not being able to stream a YouTube video holds up. Any one that uses a smart phone we have experienced not being able to access the web in many locations, for people that live in these locations that is their permanent state.

Also you shouldn't underestimate public inertia and the government's willingness to pander to these. The fact that the Black and White tv licence still exists is evidence of this. As is people holding on to 20 year old CRT tvs. Though at the same time you shouldn't underestimate the publics ability to change when something clearly better comes along (ie the switch from VHS to DVD).

Everything depends on when universal internet coverage can be brought in. I envisage that it will probably come via a mobile network (say 7G!) rather than cable. Once that happens there will be no barrier to IPTV.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

Since I got my new faster broadband I have unlimited things to watch and I choose where I watch, but I have noticed that when I switch between netflix and lovefilm they do not send somebody to see if I am lying.

Do you have gas in your home? Try getting rid of your gas cooker and heating and stopping using gas, but just tell your supplier you have stopped using their gas and therefore you won't be paying any more.

I think you'll find they do not take your word for it but will come to your home to check the meter and cap it, and have power to force entry if you don't let them in. Many years ago there was a cockup when I changed supplier and I arrived home one day to find British Gas had forced entry to my home while no one was in and fitted a pre payment meter! (I read them the riot act on the phone and they came back and took it out)

So that is a true analogy. When you can use a service covertly people will check you are entitled. British Gas will check you are not using gas without paying. The NHS will check you are a UK resident. DVLA will make sure you have car tax or a SORN. And the BBC, following legislation that requires it, will administer and enforce the TV licence, just as the Post Office did for the first sixty years in the exact same way .

[cyril-furr]

Originally Posted by Hieronymous

I'd be wary of responding to them in any way.

When I first became Legally Licence Free (LLF) I replied to their first enquiry letters (as the initial ones were). This set in motion a whole chain of events that I found extremely distateful.

Others have had similar/different experiences.

True, it is like responding to spam emails that want to sell you something, once you reply - even to tell them to "Go fourth & multiply" they know that email address is in use.
BBC/Capita are salesmen, trying to sell you something you probably do not want or need - ignore them, & they know nothing about you. They are also Phishing for data, for their Database.......If you use a computer, you should know all about Phishing

[Steve_Middlling]

Originally Posted by zz9

Do you have gas in your home? Try getting rid of your gas cooker and heating and stopping using gas, but just tell your supplier you have stopped using their gas and therefore you won't be paying any more.

I think you'll find they do not take your word for it but will come to your home to check the meter and cap it, and have power to force entry if you don't let them in. Many years ago there was a cockup when I changed supplier and I arrived home one day to find British Gas had forced entry to my home while no one was in and fitted a pre payment meter! (I read them the riot act on the phone and they came back and took it out)

So that is a true analogy. When you can use a service covertly people will check you are entitled. British Gas will check you are not using gas without paying. The NHS will check you are a UK resident. DVLA will make sure you have car tax or a SORN. And the BBC, following legislation that requires it, will administer and enforce the TV licence, just as the Post Office did for the first sixty years in the exact same way .

I think this post makes you sound a bit like a silly billy, because I am talking about T.V. Gas is something different (and dangerous if it leaks so they can gain entry for safety checks and rightly so)

[Steve_Middlling]

Originally Posted by cyril-furr

True, it is like responding to spam emails that want to sell you something, once you reply - even to tell them to "Go fourth & multiply" they know that email address is in use.
BBC/Capita are salesmen, trying to sell you something you probably do not want or need - ignore them, & they know nothing about you. They are also Phishing for data, for their Database.......If you use a computer, you should know all about Phishing

This is what I am learning from all my googling, The BBC licence people do not look good at all.

[Hieronymous]

Originally Posted by SnrDev

Oh FFS. Every few days now the same debate pops up, and the militant tendency rise from nowhere advising us to tear letters up, to ignore the inspectors, to film them with a camcorder or some such.

Jeez. It's an organisation just doing what it is legally empowered and obliged to do. Fair enough, if you're the sort of person that wants to live a life of embittered struggle against the common enemy, adopt that approach. If you want an easy life, do what I did when I didn't have either a TV or a licence. I had a pleasant conversation on my doorstep explaining that I don't have a tv, don't need a licence but will let them know when that changes, but I'm not prepared to allow all & sundry entry to my house for him to check if that's ok with you. And it wouldn't have mattered if it wasn't ok with him tbh. And that was it - man does job, no-one gets hurt or needs the police calling. A civilised conversation, of the sort that you'd have with a traffic warden, your boss, a policeman, someone on the tills in Tesco etc. No need to be their best friend or their biggest enemy, just provide the information and move on. Unless you're keen on The Struggle obviously.

Maybe this will help you understand others POV:

192. What I do not understand is why we have 3.5 million visits. Why cannot we just use vans? Would that not be more cost effective?
(Mr Smith) No. What you really need is a whole package of things that add to the picture of making people feel uncomfortable.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...18/2070112.htm

[tothegrand]

They don't have the right, but they can get the right, so to save hassle I would just let them in.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

I think this post makes you sound a bit like a silly billy, because I am talking about T.V. Gas is something different (and dangerous if it leaks so they can gain entry for safety checks and rightly so)

They have power to force entry for purely financial reasons, as I found out personally.

And the point is they do not take your word for it if you told them you are no longer using their product. That is analogous to the TVL process, both by the BBC and by the Post Office for the first sixty odd years, and by TV Licence bodies in many other countries. Detector vans, doorstep visits, prosecution etc are in no way unique to Britain.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by tothegrand

They don't have the right, but they can get the right, so to save hassle I would just let them in.

They can only get that right, a warrant, if they have already got evidence that you are using a TV illegally. Unless your TV is clearly visible from the street and they can see what you are watching, and confirm that it is live, then it is rare they will get that warrant.

[alternate]

Well if you don't have a TV then why not just invite them in for a cup of tea and a biccie. They are only doing their job.

[kidspud]

Originally Posted by zz9

They can only get that right, a warrant, if they have already got evidence that you are using a TV illegally. Unless your TV is clearly visible from the street and they can see what you are watching, and confirm that it is live, then it is rare they will get that warrant.

That isn't quite right. They have to present evidence of reasonable suspicion. That can cover a whole load of things and doesn't necessary mean they need to have seen a tv in operation.

[kidspud]

Originally Posted by alternate

Well if you don't have a TV then why not just invite them in for a cup of tea and a biccie. They are only doing their job.

I wish someone would do that and come back on here and tell us the terrible experience that they have had.....or maybe that isn't what happens!

[kidspud]

Originally Posted by Hieronymous

Maybe this will help you understand others POV:



http://www.publications.parliament.u...18/2070112.htm

He is talking about evaders. I don't think anyone (except Irish TV guy) is claiming to be an evader on here.

[katywil]

Originally Posted by SnrDev

Oh FFS. Every few days now the same debate pops up, and the militant tendency rise from nowhere advising us to tear letters up, to ignore the inspectors, to film them with a camcorder or some such.

Jeez. It's an organisation just doing what it is legally empowered and obliged to do. Fair enough, if you're the sort of person that wants to live a life of embittered struggle against the common enemy, adopt that approach. If you want an easy life, do what I did when I didn't have either a TV or a licence. I had a pleasant conversation on my doorstep explaining that I don't have a tv, don't need a licence but will let them know when that changes, but I'm not prepared to allow all & sundry entry to my house for him to check if that's ok with you. And it wouldn't have mattered if it wasn't ok with him tbh. And that was it - man does job, no-one gets hurt or needs the police calling. A civilised conversation, of the sort that you'd have with a traffic warden, your boss, a policeman, someone on the tills in Tesco etc. No need to be their best friend or their biggest enemy, just provide the information and move on. Unless you're keen on The Struggle obviously.

yes, thats what i say too. tell them you dont have a tv. tick box. tell them you will inform them when you do have a tv. thanks for calling and no. you cannot come in.

[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by Steve_Middlling

Well that is the point of my thread, I am not lying so why did that tv man visit me?

He didn't, you're just making it up.

While I'm at it, netflix and lovefilm are nothing more than an online version of blockbusters, they're not broadcasters in the same sense that ITV, BBC etc are.