Glass as a second TV?

[Daniel0210]

---

@DarrenRB wrote:

Failing that I'll just wait for the minis to drop in price on eBay 

---

@DarrenRB If minis are available on eBay they are stolen property as they are loaned to customers and must be returned to Sky when cancelling or changing to Glass, plus they'll be useless for viewing anyway. 

[TimmyBGood]

@landofmiles 

A UK regulated broadcast platform has to carry PSB: splitting hairs over whether the legislation (which long pre-dated the possibility of streaming) might be evaded using a particular interpretation of the word 'broadcast' is pretty futile as no legitimate platform would ever risk it.  Ultimately a government will need to address the issue with a complete revamp of the law, which is currently unfit for purpose.

[landofmiles]

Does Sky Now carry BBC or other live content?  My understanding was that it doesn't.  Yet it is offered by Sky 

Sky as a legacy satellite service is clearly a broadcaster however the law is pretty clear that a TV licence is only required for live TV.  At the time the law was drafted the option of streaming wasn't really a possibility so it's tough to argue that the intention was to cover this scenario too.

The BBC should not be funded via a compulsory TV tax and I will do everything I can to legally avoid paying it to the point soon that I would ditch sky to avoid paying it and remove all aerials and satellite dishes from my property.

More than 90% of my viewing now comes from non Sky streaming and I have non Sky streaming kit covering all 7 rooms with TVs.  Glass would be a useful option to retain access to some things I watch via Sky but at this point the value would be highly questionable if it meant I continued to need a TV licence too. 

[Annie+UK]

---

@landofmiles wrote:

Does Sky Now carry BBC or other live content?  My understanding was that it doesn't.  Yet it is offered by Sky 

Sky as a legacy satellite service is clearly a broadcaster however the law is pretty clear that a TV licence is only required for live TV.  At the time the law was drafted the option of streaming wasn't really a possibility so it's tough to argue that the intention was to cover this scenario too.

The BBC should not be funded via a compulsory TV tax and I will do everything I can to legally avoid paying it to the point soon that I would ditch sky to avoid paying it and remove all aerials and satellite dishes from my property.

More than 90% of my viewing now comes from non Sky streaming and I have non Sky streaming kit covering all 7 rooms with TVs.  Glass would be a useful option to retain access to some things I watch via Sky but at this point the value would be highly questionable if it meant I continued to need a TV licence too. 

---

You'll need to remove broadband also, did you know you need a TV licence to watch live YouTube broadcasts etc... 😞

[TimmyBGood]

---

@landofmiles wrote:

The BBC should not be funded via a compulsory TV tax 

---

Unfortunately you're a hundred years too late to argue that point with Churchill, Baldwin and Reith.  As I said, a drastic revision to UK law is long overdue, but successive governments have always found other things to debate instead.

[bob1234]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@landofmiles wrote:

The BBC should not be funded via a compulsory TV tax 

---

Unfortunately you're a hundred years too late to argue that point with Churchill, Baldwin and Reith.  As I said, a drastic revision to UK law is long overdue, but successive governments have always found other things to debate instead.

---

As Ofcom interpret the legislation and enforce it anything is possible, now doubt they have been looking at glass long before Sky even dropped hints about it.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@bob1234 wrote:

As Ofcom interpret the legislation and enforce it anything is possible, 

Well, very much not 'anything': a regulator can only act within the law, and has to be able to defend their interpretation of it, up to the Supreme Court if necessary.   A good example is the change in use of Mandatory Daytime Protection to cover pre-watershed broadcast of post-watershed content on Atlantic, Comedy and Documentaries: that was actually the extension of a legally described restriction, not a relaxation of it.

[landofmiles]

Not interested in watching live YouTube  (or most non love You Tube) so that's not an issue  and it's clearly not true that you need a TV licence to have broadband.

It seems to me that it's going to be very tricky to prosecute anyone who has no aerial receiving signal.  Any attempt to prosecute is then going to rely upon details of what is watched and adding a VPN is going to make that task pretty difficult and likely beyond the capability of realistic TV licence enforcement.  In the same way that it is impractical to police speed limits 24/7 on all roads in the country simultaneously.

[rscott]

---

@landofmiles wrote:

Not interested in watching live YouTube  (or most non love You Tube) so that's not an issue  and it's clearly not true that you need a TV licence to have broadband.

It seems to me that it's going to be very tricky to prosecute anyone who has no aerial receiving signal.  Any attempt to prosecute is then going to rely upon details of what is watched and adding a VPN is going to make that task pretty difficult and likely beyond the capability of realistic TV licence enforcement.  In the same way that it is impractical to police speed limits 24/7 on all roads in the country simultaneously.

---

All the streaming providers know exactly what anyone is watching at any time - in theory, Ofcom could revise their licenses to require them to provide usage data to the licensing authority!

Maybe we should simply switch to a system like the Swiss - mandatory tax per household, whether they have a TV or not, which funds public broadcasting services. It's also about twice the price of the British licence.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@landofmiles wrote:

  Any attempt to prosecute is then going to rely upon details of what is watched 

---

That's already the case, and has been since iPlayer arrived.  It's a bodge to attempt to enforce archaic legislation in an environment which those drafting the law could not have anticipated: everyone knows it's a nonsense, but no-one is prepared to change it.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@rscott wrote:

Maybe we should simply switch to a system like the Swiss - mandatory tax per household, whether they have a TV or not, which funds public broadcasting services. 

Historically the main reason we don't have that is because Churchill (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) hated the thought that 'Bolsheviks' (i.e. the imminent first majority Labour government) would have direct control of the national radio station, and presumably use it to call the oppressed masses to rise up and seize the means of production...

Isn't history marvelous?

[landofmiles]

I think the Bolsheviks have had control of the BBC for quite some time 

[TimmyBGood]

@landofmiles 

And yet still no Red Flag flying over the People's Palace at the end of the Mall...

[seanisky]

@Essex+Guy  "Could they not switch to Sky Glass (terminating the Sky Q subscription), use the Sky Glass TV in the bedroom and get a puck for the main room? 

This is way I intend to go if it's possible. My main lounge TV is a top spec Sony OLED so I wouldn't want to replace that. I plan on putting the the Sky glass TV into the kitchen and using pucks for the rest of the TVs in the household. Do we know if their is a limit on the pucks yet?"

Problem is who wants to accept £13+ a month a Glass liability for faults, it's your hardware not Sky's they are just the retailer with 'optional' 30 day Ultimate Sly "subscription". 

Then you'll need to pay for Sky secondary 'uck boxes for your lounge and a broadband connection. 

Reducing your outlays with Sat transmission costs shouldn't mean making your IPTV hardware dependent at more expense to the consumer. 

Comcast really haven't thought this or the U.K. Consumer Protection laws through. Sky don't even have a free repair/replacement policy whilst you are on credit paying their TV up. 

This isn't IPTV this is a price gouge with no consideration for Consumer Rights. Passing liability for Sky boxes to Sky (Glass) customers.

Sky Germany got puck boxes, Sky UK got 'uck screen & 'uck boxes.

Great product, absolute poor execution or customer protection.

"Take our new (overpriced)Glass  for £13 for 4 years (& all the liability of it failing), works with any broadband provider (*speed dependent) all on Ultimate Sly 30 day terms" 

Glass goes faulty in 4/14/28 months, no help but still credit payments to make. 

Turning a great product into a legal minefield, 10/10 for product, ZERO for execution = 

Sky Glass - It's more Bombfast than Comcast. 

[TimmyBGood]

@seanisky 

Three Glass TVs and six pucks per subscription address.