No TV license and better progs.

No TV license and better progs.

83 posts
20 Nov 2012
diipii
Photographer
diipii
I have been considering not having a TV set any more and sourcing all my entertainment from the net.
This has partly been inspired by the low quality of programming these days plus my urge not to pay a license fee for it.
These days I watch Frasier in the morning and the news at 6pm then, if I feel like it, on to the net for all my fave shows on YT and various iPlayer like sites.
Has anyone else set this up and what sites do you find the best for your entertainment needs ?

Have a look at this:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1492719

Good idea ?




Posted 20 Nov 2012
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Yes you wouldn't want to pay for programmes to be made when you can get other people's intellectual property for free.
But don't let that stop you complaining about people expecting to steal your photos.

Posted 20 Nov 2012
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
The license fee is actually a tax on receiving live broadcasts from any source.

This means you can be prosecuted if you watch a streamed show (being broadcast live at the time) to your computer...even if that show originates from another country.

To answer the response above...the bulk of stuff on TV is financed from private industry, not public funds or taxes, so the question of intellectual property rights when watching programmes not from the BBC doesn't arise.
Posted 20 Nov 2012
Edited by anthonyh 20 Nov 2012
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
If you decide not to have a TV, watch out for the TV licencing lot! About 11 years ago I decided not to watch TV and therefore didn't purchase a TV licence - that's when my problems started!!!
I got sick of them sending letters repeatedly with such things in large letters on the envelope as  ' A TV licencing vehicle will be visiting YOUR street very soon' and the rest of their intimidating calls, even when I'd told them I didn't even have a TV plugged in or watch it. I even invited them to call on me at any time and I would allow them in to check, but it still went on.

It was absolutely  incessant and went on until I finally flipped and sent the head of the department responsible, a recorded letter with the envelope having a message in large red print that ' A solicitors letter would be visiting him very soon ' - surprisingly, it all stopped and I never heard from them again! I feel sorry for the elderly who are very intimidated by such bullying tactics - these TV licencing people don't seem to understand that some people just don't watch TV! Of course, after a couple of years my partner moved in and I had to get one as she loved watching it!

The TV licence is no more than a draconian tax levied on everyone which actually affects the poorest in our society! At the very least, a TV licence fee should be based on ability to pay through income taxation. It's grossly unfair to expect the poorest in our society to pay this tax! Better still, why not do away with it and let the BBC become self funding just as it is for terrestrial commercial TV broadcasters? 
Posted 20 Nov 2012
Edited by tonycsm 20 Nov 2012
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
tonycsm

If you decide not to have a TV, watch out for the TV licencing lot! About 11 years ago I decided not to watch TV and therefore didn't purchase a TV licence - that's when my problems started!!!
I got sick of them sending letters repeatedly with such things in large letters on the envelope as  ' A TV licencing vehicle will be visiting my street very soon' and the rest of their intimidating calls, even when I'd told them I didn't even have a TV plugged in or watch it. I even invited them to call on me at any time and I would allow them in to check, but it still went on.

It was absolutely  incessant and went on until I finally flipped and sent the head of the department responsible, a recorded letter with the envelope having a message in large red print that ' A solicitors letter would be visiting him very soon ' - surprisingly, it all stopped and I never heard from them again! I feel sorry for the elderly who are very intimidated by such bullying tactics - these TV licencing people don't seem to understand that some people just don't watch TV! Of course, after a couple of years my partner moved in and I had to get one as she loved watching it!

The TV licence is no more than a draconian tax levied on everyone which actually affects the poorest in our society! At the very least, a TV licence fee should be based on ability to pay through income taxation. It's grossly unfair to expect the poorest in our society to pay this tax! Better still, why not do away with it and let the BBC become self funding just as it is for terrestrial commercial TV broadcasters? 


The TV licence used to cover ownership of  a UHF receiver - whether you used it or not was your prerogative.  If you owned a TV or any other device with UHF tuner you were legally required to obtain a licence.

No end of people got stung with satellite services for this reason as they didn't appreciate their TVs still had UHF tuners built-in even though they weren't using them (and using their satellite boxes via SCART instead)
Posted 20 Nov 2012
mattharper
Photographer
mattharper
tonycsm

The TV licence is no more than a draconian tax levied on everyone which actually affects the poorest in our society! At the very least, a TV licence fee should be based on ability to pay through income taxation. It's grossly unfair to expect the poorest in our society to pay this tax! Better still, why not do away with it and let the BBC become self funding just as it is for terrestrial commercial TV broadcasters? 



Why should it, or anything else for that matter, be priced according to the ability to pay?
Tesco don't do that, nor do Skoda or Rolls Royce.  Just because you are poor, it doesn't mean you should be able to get something cheaper than someone with more money.  If you want something, this s the price, your choice. 

All these people who "can't afford it" have smart phones, flat screen TVs, latest fashion clothing and so on. Half of them smoke, and that's a hefty cost to bare nowadays.  So, someone who is on benefits, smokes and has a smart phone should have a TV licence cheaper than the rest of us, should they?  Not in my book, they shouldn't. 

As far as I am concerned, the TV licence provides me with a few channels that haven't got tedious bloody adverts all the time, showing programmes for the illiterate and brain dead tossers who don't or can't appreciate a decent programme when there is one on. 

Sorry Tony, I agree with most of your comments, I must be blobbing today 


Posted 20 Nov 2012
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
All standard rate taxes are a means to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.....in that the poor pay a much greater proportion of their income in fixed taxes than the rich.

The same is true of standing charges etc.....my home energy per unit used cost me a lot more than what Cameron is paying.

Posted 20 Nov 2012
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
RedChecker

The TV licence used to cover ownership of  a UHF receiver - whether you used it or not was your prerogative.  If you owned a TV or any other device with UHF tuner you were legally required to obtain a licence.

No end of people got stung with satellite services for this reason as they didn't appreciate their TVs still had UHF tuners built-in even though they weren't using them (and using their satellite boxes via SCART instead)



I'm just surprised that they didn't introduce a vacuum cleaner or fridge tax! It's unvelievable in the 21st century that they still have a tax on TV ownership! Next thing you know they'll be introducing a tax on insurance policies....oh hang on a minu....
Posted 20 Nov 2012
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
tonycsm

I'm just surprised that they didn't introduce a vacuum cleaner or fridge tax! It's unvelievable in the 21st century that they still have a tax on TV ownership! Next thing you know they'll be introducing a tax on insurance policies....oh hang on a minu....


They don't...there is no requirement to pay the license fee because you own a TV...it is using it (or any device) to receive live broadcasts (excluding radio that is).

Posted 20 Nov 2012
mattharper
Photographer
mattharper
What was really missed was a licence for a mobile phone.
None of us would have ever argued with a licence at say (today's prices) £20. We would have accepted it in a blink of an eye.
How many mobile phones are there in the UK, something crazy like 20 million. Multiply by £20, pays a few bills, dunnit?


Posted 20 Nov 2012
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
mattharper

Why should it, or anything else for that matter, be priced according to the ability to pay?






Because it is a tax and no tax should be flat rated. By your logic...why don't we all pay the same amount of income tax P.A. irrespective of our income.....why should the poor pay less?

That is certainly the case with Councl Tax.......that doesn't give a damn about ones ability to pay.....unless on benefits.
Posted 20 Nov 2012
perfectpic
Photographer
perfectpic
Can I ask.....Has anyone ever seen a TV Detector van.....Showing my age...lol

Posted 20 Nov 2012
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
mattharper

What was really missed was a licence for a mobile phone. None of us would have ever argued with a licence at say (today's prices) £20. We would have accepted it in a blink of an eye. How many mobile phones are there in the UK, something crazy like 20 million. Multiply by £20, pays a few bills, dunnit?


If you watch live broadcasts on your phone you need a TV license....so that will cost you!

Posted 20 Nov 2012
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
mattharper

Why should it, or anything else for that matter, be priced according to the ability to pay?
Tesco don't do that, nor do Skoda or Rolls Royce.  Just because you are poor, it doesn't mean you should be able to get something cheaper than someone with more money.  If you want something, this s the price, your choice. 

All these people who "can't afford it" have smart phones, flat screen TVs, latest fashion clothing and so on. Half of them smoke, and that's a hefty cost to bare nowadays.  So, someone who is on benefits, smokes and has a smart phone should have a TV licence cheaper than the rest of us, should they?  Not in my book, they shouldn't. 

As far as I am concerned, the TV licence provides me with a few channels that haven't got tedious bloody adverts all the time, showing programmes for the illiterate and brain dead tossers who don't or can't appreciate a decent programme when there is one on. 

Sorry Tony, I agree with most of your comments, I must be blobbing today 





Hey, we can't always agree on everything Matt!
Advertising doesn't really bother me but a TV tax does, especially on the poorest in our society!
God I'm beginning to sound like a lefty!!! Next thing you know I'll be joining the Green Party!
Posted 20 Nov 2012
mattharper
Photographer
mattharper
anthonyh

Because it is a tax and no tax should be flat rated. By your logic...why don't we all pay the same amount of income tax P.A. irrespective of our income.....why should the poor pay less?

That is certainly the case with Councl Tax.......that doesn't give a damn about ones ability to pay.....unless on benefits.


I did say, to the effect of, why should anything be based on ability to pay?
The rich have to pay more tax, in total, but take far less out of the system than the poor.  
Poll Tax was far more fair.  Council tax is based on property value, so an old couple can live in a nice house and have to pay double what someone on the council estate is paying, yet they have four kids requiring education, health services, use far more public services and no doubt get benefits of one or more forms. 

Yes, flat rates would be fairer, by miles.  We would all know exactly where we are then, none of this stupidly complicated system that costs billions to run. 


Posted 20 Nov 2012
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join