Tv Licence Inspector On The Iom

[The Border Terrier]

 

>The best solution to this would be to protect the i-player so that you have to enter your licence number and a password to access the BBC programmes.

 

Commercial suicide, that's why the BBC won't do it.

Sorry, why is this commercial suicide? You'll have to explain the bad economics to me of only making something available to someone who pays as opposed to making it available to everyone regardless.

 

The BBC can't change the law to make iPlayer fee paying only. There are a few considerations.

 

One being the World Service is transmitted to distribute British propaganda globally. And recipients of that service don't fund the BBC directly. Any non-Labour politician would resist fiercely changes to the BBCs' revenue stream on that basis alone.

 

Secondly, if iPlayer has funded access via a card or PIN number then SKY, C4, ITV will all demand that the BBCs' live programmes be accessed in the same fashion. Let's face it, the technology would already be there. The downside and "commercial suicide" angle would then require the BBC to allow any non-licence payers to be able to access the rival channels for free whilst simultaneously losing the current fee collection service. Try arguing for Card/PIN charging, and then refusing those that don't wish to join, unencumbered access to the rival broadcasters. Currently if you wish to access non-BBC channels you need a licence if the broadcast is live.

 

And how many of those that currently pay for the BBC licence (but only buy a licence to watch the competition) would pay for BBC Live/iPlayer? The BBC wouldn't be cheaper i.e. increased revenue from current licence evaders wouldn't cover those losses by having to ditch the current system. Let's face it, those illegal evaders won't buy a card/PIN en-masse. Most don't pay because they can't pay. The Courts are full of single mothers on benefit, fines are paltry by comparison to the cost of a licence. Though not I might add, paltry to those on benefits.

 

Thirdly, the BBC hasn't the will not wit to employ the Card/PIN system effectively. The Digital Media Initiative instigated by the BBC has recently bombed spectacularly losing licence fee payers £millions in the process. The BBC management hasn't the experience, the likelihood of failure isn't worth the risk.

 

Forthly, despite asking for figures through the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC hasn't given any ratified figures with regard to the numbers of licence evaders and/or legal non-licence holders. Estimated figures are around 5% and nominally increasing inline with the debt crisis/unemployment situation. My understanding is that this figure is 'acceptable' with no cause for concern at the current time.

 

Blade asks:-

 

"Why dont they just change the rules to remove the bit about watching live broadcasts?"

 

Any licence fee changes would require debate through Parliament, that would highlight the BBCs' current plight of wastefulness (the figures are eye watering, and well into the £100's of millions). Current legislation has the licence fee pegged until 2017 before a further review is to be considered. My guess is that they're milking the gravy train for as long as possible without rocking the boat unnecessarily.

 

TBT.

[woolley]

>The best solution to this would be to protect the i-player so that you have to enter your licence number and a password to access the BBC programmes.

 

Commercial suicide, that's why the BBC won't do it.

 

TBT.

 

Where is the logic in that? It's nonsense that doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny. Did you get it from one of those strange people on the pro-evasion websites?

 

The vast majority of normal people would continue to buy their licence exactly as they do now, and continue to watch either live or recorded from live exactly as they do now. The only difference would be that the i-player would be available only to the current licence holders that have paid for the content. Tell me how that is commercial suicide. The only effect would be to remove the fig leaf of justification that you and your ilk rely on in defence of your Scrooge like activities consuming free of charge what others have paid for.

[The Border Terrier]

 

 

Who issues these warrants ? What evidence is required for their issue.? No just a suspicion based on f.all surely?

 

The Capita guy in the youtube video is bluffing (don't they all!). Application for, and granting of, a search warrant is extremely rare. I've certainly never heard of one being issued over here to investigate TV licence evasion. Anybody?

 

And if one was issued against me I'd find out the person that authorised it, then visit his property in similar fashion.

 

But, because I've never filled in a Census form...Capita don't know who I am (or are too lazy to find out) and all the letters are addressed to 'the occupier'.

Interesting that the Capita 'inspector' suggested that filming (on ones own property?) was against his human rights. So to film and subsequently YouTube, looks like the achilles heel of the licence bullies.

 

If you refuse 'implied rights of access', he's breaking the law by accessing any part of your property. Then just run him through with a bayonet saying you were in fear of your life.

 

TBT.

 

Never filling in a Census form will have no bearing on your TV licence "woes". They work on the reasonable assumption that every household will have a TV and therefore target houses, not individuals unless they have your details from a previous Licence. If you are fearful of filling in a census form then you would be better not being on the internet and especially posting on here; you never know who is watching/ listening, get your tinfoil hat on quick.

 

They will always harass a householder that has refused entry, as that is a sign that you have something to hide. (Look at the videos posted, the people in them come across as being unhinged, to be polite about it and also look at the state of their front gardens, that says a lot about them too) If you have nothing to hide let them in and show them your setup and if, as you say, you do not watch live, then you too will stop being hassled - Sorted.

 

>Never filling in a Census form will have no bearing on your TV licence "woes". If you are fearful of filling in a census form then you would be better not being on the internet and especially posting on here; you never know who is watching/ listening, get your tinfoil hat on quick.

 

Not filling in a Census form makes identification harder; that's why they refer to "the occupier" at point of contact. You can't take "an occupier" to Court. And you can't take "The Border Terrier" to Court either. Capita won't bother to check any other records because they're on commission and such detective work other than checking the Electoral Roll takes time...and time costs money.

 

>They will always harass a householder that has refused entry, as that is a sign that you have something to hide. (Look at the videos posted, the people in them come across as being unhinged, to be polite about it and also look at the state of their front gardens, that says a lot about them too)

Refusing "implied rights of access" makes it illegal to access any area of the property without a warrant; warrants take time, time is money QED.

 

> If you have nothing to hide let them in and show them your setup and if, as you say, you do not watch live, then you too will stop being hassled - Sorted.

 

Snicker...

 

TBT.

[ans]

You used a lot of words there to basically flounder around a lot and not answer my question. Good work. You need a proof reader.

[woolley]

The BBC can't change the law to make iPlayer fee paying only. There are a few considerations.

 

if iPlayer has funded access via a card or PIN number then SKY, C4, ITV will all demand that the BBCs' live programmes be accessed in the same fashion. Let's face it, the technology would already be there. The downside and "commercial suicide" angle would then require the BBC to allow any non-licence payers to be able to access the rival channels for free whilst simultaneously losing the current fee collection service. Try arguing for Card/PIN charging, and then refusing those that don't wish to join, unencumbered access to the rival broadcasters. Currently if you wish to access non-BBC channels you need a licence if the broadcast is live.

TBT.

Do the evaders sit in darkened rooms coming up with this stuff and convincing themselves it holds water while laughing manically like the chap on youtube?

 

I am not advocating changing the law to make i-player fee paying. I am proposing it should be a free add on service available to valid licence holders only. No problem there. It is just one more service among many from the corporation to the licence payers.

 

It is a quantum leap to suggest as you do, that this would mean that live free to air programmes should only be accessed in the same narrow way. The vast majority of consumers of BBC output would still access it in the live or recorded live broadcast form. ITV and C4 would certainly have no interest in making everything subscription only. They rely on large free to air audiences to attract the big fee paying advertisers. They don't have the clout to lobby successfully for anything less to apply to the BBC. If they had, they could have done something about the early unregulated days of Sky.

 

As for Sky, well they pretty much do as they feel right down the line and always have done. They set up using a continental satellite, came in under the regulatory radar and whipped the UK government licensed British Satellite Broadcasting who were doing everything much more expensively to the system specified by the government. The same government was deaf to the justified BSB complaints and inevitably Sky took over BSB and put themselves into pole position. They then went about buying up rights and depriving terrestrial viewers of many of the sporting events that had always been free to everyone. Now, people who object to paying around £12 per month for the BBC seem content to throw £50 to £60 per month at Sky for a service that, apart from the live sporting events, is full of channels showing BBC repeats and assorted foreign dross punctuated by multitudinous adverts. Believe in better. Right. I think Sky have nothing to complain about at all in their treatment and should reflect on their good fortune.

[The Border Terrier]

 

The BBC can't change the law to make iPlayer fee paying only. There are a few considerations.

 

if iPlayer has funded access via a card or PIN number then SKY, C4, ITV will all demand that the BBCs' live programmes be accessed in the same fashion. Let's face it, the technology would already be there. The downside and "commercial suicide" angle would then require the BBC to allow any non-licence payers to be able to access the rival channels for free whilst simultaneously losing the current fee collection service. Try arguing for Card/PIN charging, and then refusing those that don't wish to join, unencumbered access to the rival broadcasters. Currently if you wish to access non-BBC channels you need a licence if the broadcast is live.

TBT.

Do the evaders sit in darkened rooms coming up with this stuff and convincing themselves it holds water while laughing manically like the chap on youtube?

 

I am not advocating changing the law to make i-player fee paying. I am proposing it should be a free add on service available to valid licence holders only. No problem there. It is just one more service among many from the corporation to the licence payers.

 

It is a quantum leap to suggest as you do, that this would mean that live free to air programmes should only be accessed in the same narrow way. The vast majority of consumers of BBC output would still access it in the live or recorded live broadcast form. ITV and C4 would certainly have no interest in making everything subscription only. They rely on large free to air audiences to attract the big fee paying advertisers. They don't have the clout to lobby successfully for anything less to apply to the BBC. If they had, they could have done something about the early unregulated days of Sky.

 

As for Sky, well they pretty much do as they feel right down the line and always have done. They set up using a continental satellite, came in under the regulatory radar and whipped the UK government licensed British Satellite Broadcasting who were doing everything much more expensively to the system specified by the government. The same government was deaf to the justified BSB complaints and inevitably Sky took over BSB and put themselves into pole position. They then went about buying up rights and depriving terrestrial viewers of many of the sporting events that had always been free to everyone. Now, people who object to paying around £12 per month for the BBC seem content to throw £50 to £60 per month at Sky for a service that, apart from the live sporting events, is full of channels showing BBC repeats and assorted foreign dross punctuated by multitudinous adverts. Believe in better. Right. I think Sky have nothing to complain about at all in their treatment and should reflect on their good fortune.

 

Your Card/PIN solution to combat non-licence holders seems infallible.

 

So why haven't the BBC prevented non-paying access to their programmes?

 

ANS, Blade, anybody?

 

TBT.

[kevster]

One being the World Service is transmitted to distribute British propaganda globally. And recipients of that service don't fund the BBC directly. Any non-Labour politician would resist fiercely changes to the BBCs' revenue stream on that basis alone.

The World Service is an excellent example of 'soft diplomacy' and is one of the most respected media outlets in the world.

 

Also, the funding for the WS has not come from the licence fee, but is wholly paid for by the FCO - although that is due to change this year

[Declan]

You could make Iplayer licence fee only for certain stations - so World Service could remain free, you could invite ITV and c4 (although haven't they turned down they option?) as well and they could be free to air if they wanted.

 

It would also be great if then iPlayer was available to licence fee payers when they are abroad.

[ans]

So why haven't the BBC prevented non-paying access to their programmes?

Because they have a license fee that funds it and they don't care?

 

That license fee goes and the paywall to iPlayer goes up quicker than you can blink.

[alibaba]

Do all court judgements get published online somewhere? Where, and when?

 

Someone I know was in court this morning charged with not paying for a tv licence. They had a decent sized flat screen hooked up to an xbox for gaming. The hired goon came round, claimed he was watching tv and made up a statement to that effect, and possibly even forged a signature. I'd quite like to read the judgement. The guy was found to be innocent of the charge.

[Chinahand]

At New Year, I was talking with a friend who works for a company manufacturing TVs - he told me iPlayer will be enabled to input a licence number - so you can watch it from a non UK ISP. I didn't ask whether it will be needed for within the UK, or whether the BBC plans to sell licences abroad - he's on the technology side so only knows the technical bit, but the new specs include this feature - whether it is enabled and for where is a political decision, but the technology is being specified now.

[woolley]

Your Card/PIN solution to combat non-licence holders seems infallible.

 

So why haven't the BBC prevented non-paying access to their programmes?

 

ANS, Blade, anybody?

 

TBT.

I always favour cock up and chaos theory over conspiracy theory because that's how it normally turns out. BBC operates pretty much as slovenly as the civil service so they no doubt think they'll get around to it some day.

[woolley]

At New Year, I was talking with a friend who works for a company manufacturing TVs - he told me iPlayer will be enabled to input a licence number - so you can watch it from a non UK ISP. I didn't ask whether it will be needed for within the UK, or whether the BBC plans to sell licences abroad - he's on the technology side so only knows the technical bit, but the new specs include this feature - whether it is enabled and for where is a political decision, but the technology is being specified now.

Good.

[LogicDM101]

They will always harass a householder that has refused entry, as that is a sign that you have something to hide. (Look at the videos posted, the people in them come across as being unhinged, to be polite about it and also look at the state of their front gardens, that says a lot about them too) If you have nothing to hide let them in and show them your setup and if, as you say, you do not watch live, then you too will stop being hassled - Sorted.

Not letting the scum into your home is not a sign of hiding something, it's your basic human right not to let these vermin in.

 

And what kind of person are you to judge people by the appearance of their properties?

 

And they won't have left you alone after your 18 month battle with them, they will be back, of that I asure you.

 

I'm thoroughly disgusted you said that about people, really I am. Goons deserve every bit of negative publicity they get for all the reasons I highlighted earlier on.

 

[LogicDM101]

Blade Runner. I politely suggest you take a very long hard look at yourself.

 

Think for a minute that some people might not be able to afford the quintessential English country garden or even want one. Then think about how some of these people less fortunate than ourselves might not be able to afford £145.50 a year.Can't see you having much empathy on that score though, you'd probably tell them to throw the tv away.