Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36048339)

The license is to watch live TV as it is broadcast, not to use your TV.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36048340)

Do you mean like the Fox News channel that closed down in the UK due to lack of viewers?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36048350)

I could see a freeview service with ads and product placement but a limited output and a premium subscription service of the better(?) output.

That would need to earn it's place in the delivery spectrum so no woke nonsense. The lovvies would hate it.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36048344)

Not quite - it’s a licence to use equipment to receive broadcasts, not to watch them. You need the licence even if you only use a PVR to record broadcasts for later viewing. (Side note, back in the old days, you were breaking the law if you had a black and white licence for your black and white TV, but also had a video recorder, because the video recorder was receiving and recording colour signals).

It also has an additional stipulation covering reception of “broadcast” via the internet, but uniquely this clause applies only to the BBC and not to any or all TV broadcasts.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36048352)

That's what I meant as you well know!

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36048369)

Sack the overpriced Gary Lineker, who said he would leave if we voted leave. That £1.7m saved for a start.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36048365)

That's basically what I said, just left out the recording part.

It doesn't just apply to the BBC, it covers live broadcasts on all other online platforms too such as ITV player.

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------



How am I supposed to know what you mean? You said it was to use your TV which is incorrect. You can use a TV without needing a license.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36048372)

As we are talking about TV channels (BBC) I thought it was very clear but apologize I hadn't reconond on some not being able to see that.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36048373)

I can see where you are coming from. If it covers all live broadcasts then why is it only the BBC who gets the money? If the BBC is so good then let its audience pay for it. The other live broadcasters seem to be doing OK with decreased advertising revenue.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36048372)

As we are talking about TV channels (BBC) I thought it was very clear but apologize I hadn't reconond on some not being able to see that.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36048378)

If we get rid of the BBC what happens with the revolving door to Downing Street and CCHQ for Spads, media advisors etc?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36048381)

I’d bin it, however it’s an arm of the British state to control the proletariat so it will remain as part of the Establishment. It plays an important role in controlling the media narrative that the Government (of any day) wouldn’t trust the commercial sector to do.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36048382)

But, but, but....

It’s a left-wing tree-hugging commie-symp woke luvvie organisation - how can it be an arm of the establishment whilst being totally against the establishment? :confused:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36048381)

I’d bin it, however it’s an arm of the British state to control the proletariat so it will remain as part of the Establishment. It plays an important role in controlling the media narrative that the Government (of any day) wouldn’t trust the commercial sector to do.