Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: BBC sends cops to arrest nonviewer for refusing to pay the licensing fee
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 02:01:31 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <101gc9r$1ndoa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101fqpt$1evk0$1@dont-email.me> <101g4o0$1911r$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 04:01:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3cd670a3aee92d783857844403e39f43";
	logging-data="1816330"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181vslHn4o+65Tdg8h8HCEn"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fdq14yK/mKBnfMArf/WK0FBZ1hE=

On May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

> On 2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>  Americans who complain about the inconsequentially small subsidy given
>>  to public television and radio licensees have no idea how good we have
>>  it in this country. In the UK, there's been a mandatory licensing fee
>>  for receiving radio and television via the natural electromagnetic
>>  spectrum and expanded to receiving a signal via other methods. The BBC
>>  receives a phenomenal public subsidy of close to lb 4 billion.
>>  
> And I thought our CBC got an obscene amount of money ($1.5 billion a 
> year under Trudeau, increased by $150 million under Carney, probably to 
> thank them for their enthusiastic coverage of his recent election 
> campaign.)
> 
>>  It's very difficult to avoid being not subject to the licensing fee. A
>>  man chose not to watch tv and informed BBC that he was not subject to
>>  the licensing fee.
>> 
> The video was educational for me. I knew about the license fee but not 
> the precise terms. I always thought it was only for BBC channels but 
> apparently it's for the commercial channels like ITV and Channel 4 as 
> well. BUT you don't have to pay it if you don't watch live TV and you 
> don't use any services like iPlayer to view programming on a delay.
> 
> That means if you use your TV simply to watch DVDs, BluRays, VHS, etc. 
> you don't need to pay the license fee. But it's not clear how they know 
> that you're not watching live TV or if you have to notify them to be 
> exempt from the fee.
> 
>>  BBC sent the police to arrest him. Not watching tv is criminal behavior.
>>  
>>  They had videod him looking at a video with a still taken from a BBC
>>  program that the man found on the Internet. They obviously couldn't
>>  prove this was live tv (in fact they knew that it wasn't being
>>  broadcast) and the judge threw the criminal case out.
>>  
>>  But that meant they had to peep through his windows, trespassing.
>>  
> I'm not so sure about that. I was under the impression that they have 
> trucks with direction finders or something similar to tell if you are 
> receiving a TV signal.

That wouldn't work for people with smart phones or tablets using cellular data
or wifi to watch Netflix or the Prime.

And is YouTube considered something you need a license for?

>  Something along the lines of the vans they used 
> during WWII to see if someone was operating a radio transmitter and was 
> presumably a foreign spy.
> 
>>  I've seen videos in which UK barristers explain that BBC license
>>  enforcement has an implied right of access to enter the premisis to look
>>  for contraband unlicensed radio and tv receivers.
>>  
>>  The man was sick of the nasty letters and pounding on the door to be let
>>  in, so he wrote to BBC in order to withdraw the implied right of access.

Seems like simply posting a sign saying "All implied rights of access to this
property are expressly revoked and trespassers will be prosecuted" would do
the trick.