Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.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 09:44:28 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <101hlft$24lrq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101fqpt$1evk0$1@dont-email.me> <101g4o0$1911r$7@dont-email.me>
 <101gc9r$1ndoa$1@dont-email.me> <101ge9g$1npub$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 15:44:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="41b0ae5e39775fdc1b8413bddc806211";
	logging-data="2250618"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192UPAUQUGFvOYBK5PO+XPatDowzsRBrAk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7E4ntEouM6Ck52ZcGKrdC9sUdMw=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250601-2, 6/1/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <101ge9g$1npub$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-CA

On 2025-05-31 10:35 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>> 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?
> 
> If it's live streaming, then the license fee applies. Recorded videos, I
> wouldn't think so.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> If they have a suspicion -- whether reasonable or not -- that a receiver
> subject to licensing is on the premisis, then implied consent cannot be
> revoked. That's why the guy wrote the letter. They continued to harass
> him. They desperately need an equivalent of the Bill of Rights in a
> written constitution.

I'm not clear to me how the TV signal is delivered in the UK. Is it over 
the air, via cable, via satellite, via cell towers or some other method?

In any case, it seems to me that they need to take the same approach 
they take to other utilities: if you fail to pay for what you use, they 
cut off the supply of the service. If you don't pay your water bill, 
they can turn off the water. Therefore, if you don't pay your license 
fee, cut off the supply of TV to your house or apartment.

By analogy with water, you can still use your sink or bathtub if your 
water is cut off, you just have to come up with your own water, via 
jugs, a backyard well or whatever. By the same token, you're not getting 
live TV in the house any more if you've had your TV feed shut off but 
you can still watch DVDs or other pre-recorded media.

That approach should solve the problem nicely WITHOUT the police needing 
to be involved at all unless perhaps you somehow interfere with the guy 
turning off the TV feed to your house or you pirate the feed somehow by 
tapping into the neighbour's feed.


-- 
Rhino