Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: BBC sends cops to arrest nonviewer for refusing to pay the licensing fee
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 04:02:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <104q2ck$1am0i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101fqpt$1evk0$1@dont-email.me> <101g4o0$1911r$7@dont-email.me> <101gc9r$1ndoa$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 06:02:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7bcbd574f32c3f344cee8bed99c15c74";
	logging-data="1398802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JkIsD6uqWMSKC8MNWW+jotMnx2Vk4D0c="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1QghmAa37jxYqnQPG/EqWxI9Gx8=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

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?

>>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.

Hey! Someone took your advice!

They set a trap for tv licensing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o46BHr19Dw