what can i watch on sky when i cancel my tv license ?

[monkey339]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

As a regulated EPG provider, Sky is obliged to give 'due prominence' to the five PSB channels, with the BBC most prominent.  That's UK law and effectively has been for nearly a century: this is a political decision because every government since then has decreed that having a national non-commercial station funded by the general population (first radio, then television) is a 'a good thing'

---

Interesting stuff, it's always nice to see how ruthless the BBC is in finding ways to extort our money while also taking away our right to choose.

[monkey339]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

Strictly speaking, no, because pretty much every computer, phone and tablet has that capability.  It's the act of viewing which is licenceable, not the possession of hardware.

---

Yes I'm very aware that "strictly speaking" that is how the laws are written, therefore proof that you use actually use a device to watch/record live TV should be required.

However I follow several anti BBC licence Youtube channels, websites etc & people absolutely do get prosecuted for merely having a device capable of displaying live TV connected up to a TV. This is one of the main things their rent-a-mob “inspectors” looks for if they get warrant to invade your home with a police chaperon & there are videos online showing it.

I’ve either seen or read about many such cases going to court & in every one of those cases the magistrate has just presumed the defendant was guilty of watching/recording live TV & sided with the BBC.

It does seem like the BBC hasn’t yet pushed for phones & laptops etc, possibly because it’d be a massive can of worms? But it does seem like they are becoming increasingly desperate as more & more people are canceling their licences each year & they are trying to claw back revenue by proposing ridiculous laws to link the licence to broadband or streaming TV services etc.

They absolutely do not want people to have the right to choose.

[monkey339]

---

---

As a regulated EPG provider, Sky is obliged to give 'due prominence' to the five PSB channels, with the BBC most prominent.  That's UK law and effectively has been for nearly a century: this is a political decision because every government since then has decreed that having a national non-commercial station funded by the general population (first radio, then television) is a 'a good thing'

---

Would they be able to stick to these totally fair & just laws if they gave them 'due prominence' as standard, but also had an option for the device owner to be able to disable live broadcasts if they wished?🤔

I think not having this option will put off a growing number of people like my self. We have Sky broadband under my wifes name & they recently offered her a TV Puck with absolutely loads of stuff included for around an extra £2.50 per month, my wife thought it was a great deal so took them up on it as she has little understanding the outdated TV licencing laws .

When she told me the first thing I done was find out if they have any live broadcast capability, which they do so it looks like we will have to pass on a good thing thanks to the good old Beeb & just send back the equipment.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@monkey339 wrote:

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

As a regulated EPG provider, Sky is obliged to give 'due prominence' to the five PSB channels, with the BBC most prominent.  

---

Interesting stuff, it's always nice to see how ruthless the BBC is in finding ways to extort our money while also taking away our right to choose.

---

Remember the existence of the BBC was, and continues to be, a decision made by UK Government, for nearly 100 years.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@monkey339 wrote:

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

proposing ridiculous laws to link the licence to broadband or streaming TV services etc.

---

Those are certainly possible, yes, if Government decides the BBC should continue to exist.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2025/two-years-to-decide-how-to-replace-tv-licence/ 

[monkey339]

It isn't beyond imagination under the current gov.

[TimmyBGood]

@monkey339 

However strongly some people may feel about it now, I'd suggest a century of heritage and a world class brand name aren't things to be abandoned lightly.

[monkey339]

Yes they were once world class but that was a long time ago, although obviously a matter of opinion.

Time, people & technology have moved on & the BBC is thrashing around like a drowning animal trying to secure funding as they become increasingly irrelevant.

Putting aside personal opinions about what class the BBC currently may be,  there is simply no justification for forcing people who either do not like/want what they produce or actually hate them & their politics to pay them their hard earned money.

I do not abandon them lightly, I would revel their overdue & well deserved colapse. If they would only leave people well alone maybe they would not be so hated by rapidly increasing numbers.

I'd love to just completely forget about the BBC but unfortunately they like to send me threatening letters every 2 weeks & an idiot to my door every year or in order to make sure that I can’t.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@monkey339 wrote:

Putting aside personal opinions about what class the BBC currently may be,  there is simply no justification for forcing people who either do not like/want what they produce or actually hate them & their politics to pay them their hard earned money.

---

The 'justification' is that successive governments over a century have decided that the BBC should exist but not be paid for through direct taxation, so the Licence Fee was invented as a politically expedient bodge.  The question for contemporary politicians is whether that continues to be viable.

I'd observe that government spends 'our' money on many things which a large number of individual citizens disagree with but have no choice but to pay taxes to fund: the BBC is an oddity in this respect, being the national broadcaster but not operating within the national budget.

[monkey339]

I wouldn't say the licence fee was "invented as a politically expedient bodge" as it made complete sense at the time & was basically just the radio licence which had been going since 1923 but for TVs.

1) Only the BBC broadcasted TV at the time so it was fair enough, this later became outdated as time & technology moved on & should ave been addressed well before now.

2) People who didn't own a TV (which was many back then) shouldn't have to pay to watch a TV that they could not afford (or want).

Then in 2006 the licence fee was reclassified a hypothecated tax as it is raised for a specific purpose.

The fact that governments over time haven't done anything about the situation means absolutely nothing to me in the present day. The Cons talked about rattling the BBC's cage when last in but as expected done absolutely sweet FA as per because they only ever lifted a finger if the MSM whipped up a storm about something. Labour obviously will be pro BBC. The only hope of giving the public a choice in this matter would be if Reform got in the next election.

90% of what the government does is waste our money & that is why we should voice their opinions on how they are wasting it.

It really is very easy to find out the British public do or do not want to fund the BBC anymore, simply make it a subscription only service & let the people decide.