New Package That Requires NO TV Licence

[Philip1974]

I recently cancelled my TV licence and was surprised by the ridiculous rules I now have to follow.

1) I can’t watch ANY channel live or record any programme live and watch it later, but…

2) I CAN watch anything I download, except for BBC programmes.

This isn’t much of a disruption for me because I rarely watch anything live, but I do usually record lots of things and watch them when I want. So now I have to download them from catch-up rather than recording – it’s a completely stupid distinction to get the same end result, but if it saves me paying the licence fee…

So then I thought, there are two ways Sky can take advantage of this idiotic policy to gain more subscribers…

1) Create the ability to download link as opposed to series link. This is for programmes where the whole series isn’t released at once, like Magnum P.I. on Sky One. We get one episode per week. As things stand I can’t series link this show because that would record it live, so I now have to count on myself to remember to manually download this every week. Not so hard when tracking one show, but when tracking a dozen or more, this requires a lot of note taking.

2) This is the more exciting option, but would require more investment from Sky – create a new package and market it as the ‘No TV Licence Needed’ package. This package would not allow the viewer to watch any live TV, but would allow download series links for all programmes that they follow, except BBC shows and access to iPlayer.

Last year saw record numbers of people cancel their TV licence, and most of them are now just getting the shows they want from download sites and watching them. What if you took away all that hassle and provided this option as part of Sky? I think you would get a lot of new subscribers.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Philip1974 wrote:

So then I thought, there are two ways Sky can take advantage of this idiotic policy to gain more subscribers…

---

By 'idiotic policy', you presumably mean the UK laws intended to facilitate public service broadcasting, something that every government, no matter what political persuasion, has sought to do for 97 years?

[oj01]

Doesn't having the ability to watch live TV require a license? 

Owning a Sky box gives you that ability even without a subscription. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@oj01 wrote:

Doesn't having the ability to watch live TV require a license? 

No, it's the act of actually doing so that is licenced*.  I assume the changes @Philip1974 suggests aim to create a defacto defence against accusations of unlicenced use, but they wouldn't cover all the other devices in a typical household which could have been used.

* from ' licere ' : ' to be permitted '

[Philip1974]

No, I didn't mean that TimothyBGood, I meant he idiotic poilicy that if I record a programme and watch it, that's illegal. But if I donwload the same programe and watch it, that IS legal. 

If you use the BBC services a lot then you should pay your licence fee because it's good value for money. I saw someone post today that Netflix now costs more per month than the TV licence. But I didn't watch hardly anythng on the BBC, so it annoyed me to have to pay for a service I didn't use.

[Philip1974]

No, because every TV now has freeview built in, so you could claim any TV - and most devices - have the ability to watch live TV.

I still have my Sky+ box but I'm now only using it to download programmes from catch-up. How they intend to prove that one way or the other is their problem. I suppose they can look at my Scheduled and see there's nothing on it, or look at my Deleted list and see everything was downloaded and there was nothing from the BBC.

I've now been without live TV for over a week and don't see any difference. I think the only time I ever used to watch live TV was when I'd sit down to eat and just flick the TV on for some noise. Now I turn Planet Rock on instead.

[Philip1974]

Anyone I know who's had a visit from the TV licence people say they only check your main TV. Other devices aren't registered so how would they know what you have or how many of them you have?

If it's something like Sky which you can watch on multiple devices, they all stem from the same subscription package, which is why I was suggesting a package that catered to those who don't need to watch live TV or the beeb. If you told the TV licence person you were on that package, and showed proof, they wouldn't even need to come in.

[Annie+UK]

---

@Philip1974 wrote:

Anyone I know who's had a visit from the TV licence people say they only check your main TV. Other devices aren't registered so how would they know what you have or how many of them you have?

If it's something like Sky which you can watch on multiple devices, they all stem from the same subscription package, which is why I was suggesting a package that catered to those who don't need to watch live TV or the beeb. If you told the TV licence person you were on that package, and showed proof, they wouldn't even need to come in.

---

You should NEVER speak to anyone from the TVL, the purpose of their job is to trick you into incriminating yourself and get you to either purchase a license or get you into the fine system, not talking to them makes their job very difficult

[Philip1974]

No, TimmyBGood, that isn't what I meant. I meant it was idiotic to say if I record a programme and watch it, that's illegal, but if I donwload the same programme from catch-up and watch it, that is legal.

[TimmyBGood]

@Philip1974 

The purpose of television licencing is to pay for public service broadcasting, which governments have considered to be a 'public good' since the 1920s.  It doesn't really matter on what basis they choose to extract money from the population for such things to exist: my point was that choice rarely comes into it.

[Philip1974]

@TimmyBGood Don't you think choice SHOULD come into it? Or do you think I should continue to pay for a service I don't use? I've always found the idea of a TV licence unfair, and even the current rules are totally unfair - why am I not allowed to watch ANY channel live when the BBC is the only one the licence applies to?

[TimmyBGood]

@Philip1974 

I suspect I won't get to use the shiny new aircraft carrier the Royal Navy has just got either, and I don't need to travel between London and Birmingham 20 minutes faster. The license fee is a polite fiction invented to cover up a tax used to pay for something government has historically decided is a 'good thing', whether or not those who are paying agree.

[Philip1974]

@TimmyBGood The military and infrastrustcure are paid for with our taxes. TV licence is specifically to pay for the BBC. I don't think you can compare the two. The BBC is not part of the government, they're a business like any other. Where they differ is they expect everyone to pay their business whether they use it or not. I wish I could start a business like that. Only tradition keeps people from questioning it. The current government may find the BBC useful, but that's no reason to just sit back and accept this extortion every year.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Philip1974 wrote:

they're a business like any other

---

Not since 1926, as you go on to point out: they probably should be by now, but that's another matter.  The British Broadcasting Company Ltd would have been co-opted as an arm of state but for the circumstances (primarily the General Strike) prevalent during its transformation into the British Broadcasting Corporation by Royal Charter, which was why the 'licence fee' concept was entrenched as a cosy arrangement by Reith and Baldwin (with Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer) to avoid the use of tax revenue with a Ministry in charge of spending and the inevitable party political influence which this would bring: the likelihood of the first ever majority Labour government was something of a factor too as those involved greatly feared providing it with a 'state' broadcaster as mouthpiece.

The continued existence of both the BBC in this almost 100 year-old form and the effectively mandatory 'fee' (set by government and voted through by Parliament) imposed by law on nearly every household to pay for it is a huge historical anomaly, but then Britain is good at those...

[xenon81]

In Germany every household is obliged to pay a tax for public service broadcasting even if they don't have a TV. I think we may move towards a system like that one day to close all the loopholes that exist in the current system.

Currently anyone can cancel their TV licence and claim they'll never watch live TV again, but (speaking generally here, not about anyone in this thread) I wonder how many honestly stick to it? If there's major breaking news or a signficant live sporting event, will they really think "I don't have a licence, I better not watch it!".