Slashdot Mirror

Or are people really stupid enough to not know about broadcast fucking TV?

Sadly, this is a real phenomenon, and it isn't limited to Millennials.

My folks had a couple in their mid-40s over for dinner a few years back (2014ish, I think). At some point during the conversation it came up that my parents used an antenna to watch TV, rather than subscribing to cable. The wife insisted that TV channels aren't available for free, so no matter what my parents called it, what they were really doing was stealing TV from the cable companies. It took my parents and her husband a good 20 minutes to convince her that it was not, in fact, a form of theft and that OTA TV is, in fact, freely available to anyone willing to put up an antenna.

Mind you, this woman was old enough that she wouldn't have grown up with cable TV in her home, since it wasn't widely available during her childhood. The fact that she didn't remember that or know that it was still a thing was astounding.

So yes, these sorts of people really exist, and it's not just MBAs.

She would be correct in England though.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

" The BBC is funded via a license fee covered by British taxpayers"

Not exactly correct although some would argue the license fee is a tax.

Every household has to pay the Television License (£145.50 per annum - £12.12 per month) if they have a device capable of receiving terrestrial television signals *and* it is able to receive signals (i.e; antenna connected), or if a person in the household uses the BBC Internet iPlayer service [0].

As well as video services the license funds several national radio services and tens of regional county/city radio stations.

[0] http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/a...

"Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as theyâ(TM)re being shown on television without a TV Licence."

Note that you have to install AND use to watch our record for it to be an offence. This is reiterated here:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/f...

Huh?

You clearly quoted it saying "install or use", not "install and use".

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/a...

"Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as theyâ(TM)re being shown on television without a TV Licence."

Note that you have to install AND use to watch our record for it to be an offence. This is reiterated here:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/f...

Huh?

You clearly quoted it saying "install or use", not "install and use".

Yep. I have no license, but my TV in my bedroom is plugged in to the aerial so I can receive radio broadcasts. Alarm on my TV tuned to Radio 2 wakes me up every morning.

Quote from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/a...

Is a TV Licence required for listening to digital radio broadcasts?

A TV Licence is required to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV, regardless of the channel and device being used (e.g. TV, computer, laptop, tablet, mobile phone, game console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder), and how it is received (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way). You do not need a TV Licence if you only use this equipment to listen to digital radio broadcasts.

There is a difference between the law and practice here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one indicates that you only need a licence to receive TV, not install one. Given the presence of internet-connected computers in my house (which could receive live TV) and the lack of a TV licence I have a little evidence that practice prevails.

With regards the timing, the Act includes the clause "or virtually the same time" which would cover transmission delay.

As I have posted elsewhere, you are wrong.

You need a TV license if EITHER of the following apply:
1. You own equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV OR
2. You watch TV live through any other means (eg, video-on-demand services). Live in this case means synchronous with program OTA broadcasts.

[Citation needed]

[1] is not true. You only need a TV licence if you watch TV live by any means. My source: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/a...

"Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as theyâ(TM)re being shown on television without a TV Licence."

Note that you have to install AND use to watch our record for it to be an offence. This is reiterated here:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/f...

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/a...

"Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as theyâ(TM)re being shown on television without a TV Licence."

Note that you have to install AND use to watch our record for it to be an offence. This is reiterated here:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/f...

If I pay a license fee to have BBC content, then I don't want others receiving it for free.

BBC should fix this by requiring people to authenticate their TV license to use the site.

That would be great except you don't actually need a licence to watch programs on iPlayer..

If you only ever watch ‘on demand’ programmes, you don’t need a TV Licence. On demand includes catch-up TV, streaming or downloading programmes after they’ve been shown on live TV, or programmes available online before being shown on TV."

or they could just force you to create an account on iPlayer that's tied to your TV license.

You only need a TV licence to watch programs that are being broadcast in real time on iPlayer. (ie if you are watching a show on iPlayer that you could also watch simultanuously on a TV.

"If you only ever watch ‘on demand’ programmes, you don’t need a TV Licence. On demand includes catch-up TV, streaming or downloading programmes after they’ve been shown on live TV, or programmes available online before being shown on TV."

So why are the BBC listing online in their license fee expenditure?

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/c...

Stop making shit up.

The details on your nonexistent tax:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/c...
Details on those nonexistent detector vans, with pic and history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

By just having a TV tuner in your household you need to pay the license. Regardless of whether you use it or not. So unless you run an Xbox through an HDMI monitor and don't own a single TV then yes, the license fee dwarfs the cost of the tuner.

WRONG!

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/c...

From the above link:

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

In other words, even if you have a tuner, as long as it is not used, you DO NOT need a TV license to cover it. Should you, however, watch any content online at the same time as it is being broadcast, you DO need a license, even if you do not own a single piece of kit with a tuner in it.

It should be noted that when you buy any equipment with a tuner in it (TV / STB / PCTV device / whatever) the retailer will normally take your name and address (I believe this is by law) and this information is communicated to the TV Licensing bureau. If, when they receive this notification, they do not have on record any current valid TV license for that property, they will send out a letter asking you to either provide evidence that you have a license, buy one, or make a declaration that neither you, nor anyone in the property, watch or record TV as it is being broadcast, regardless of whether it is via the equipment you bought or some other method (e.g. online). As we keep our license up-to-date (My wife's daughter lives with us. It would seem that not having the capability to watch the latest reality-TV/whatever-other-crap-is-on is almost considered cruelty by many these days!), I have no idea what happens if you fail to respond to such a letter (I only received one of these letters because we bought a new TV the day we moved, and my change of address notification and their letter crossed in the mail).

Pay for your TV Licence in a way that suits you

You don't need license to watch iplayer. You only need a license if you watch TV as it is broadcast live, so you can't watch any channel online live, but you can watch it later. See here : "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast."

If you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV, on any device, you don’t need a TV Licence.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check/viewtopiccontent.aspx?id=TOP12
The world got along fine without dross TV shows. Go read a book, play music, paint, exercise, play games, fuck, cook. write. Go to a play. Watch live performace it's in 3D!. Make the world a better place.
As for the BBC make programmes for X. Do you really need another polar bear program?

You've been able to listen to the radio without a TV license for as long as I can remember.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ102/

The poster doesn't need a licence if he only uses catch-up services like iPlayer. Source

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV... You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

Source

That's not enough you have to own nothing capable of receiving tv signal and thanks to tv channel repeater sites that includes a computer.

Nonsense, I don't have a TV licence, but I do have a computer. The ONLY stipulation is that you don't watch programmes as they are being broadcast. You are still allowed to watch them later on iPlayer without having a licence.

Reference

Poor content? Compared to 90% of the bland shit that is produced by the other big commercial producers (Sky, HBO, ITV, etc) the BBC stuff is far better

I would disagree. In fact if I was legally allowed the option. I would cancel my TV license and subscribe to netflix which is less than half the price :)

You are legally allowed the option moron. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check/viewtopiccontent.aspx?id=TOP12&iqdocumentid=TOP12&WT.mc_id=r001

They recognise that a great many people own a huge TV but don't actually use it for watching live TV so do not need a licence. If you are only interested in watching netflix just follow the link I posted above and stop wasting our time with your ignorance.

The relevance of "receiving broadcasts" is that is the action which legally requires the purchase of a TV license -- regardless of who is broadcasting. This covers TV cards in computers, recording devices, etc.

Full details here: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

Your analogy with newspapers is more-or-less correct. In many countries the money for the public broadcasters comes from general taxation. The British way means only those who watch TV pay, and keeps the BBC a bit more independent of the government.

... but there's some hoops to jump through to get them to stop bugging you about it.

Not according to my British friends, there's not. They just keep bugging you. One of my friends (generally known in the Crome OS and Raspberry Pi communities as "Hexxeh") finally just gave in and paid the fee, even though he only ever uses the thing as a monitor. I told him he was nuts, but the lack of a BBC weenie calling him on his cell phone weekly apparently causes the license to pay for itself in reduced cell minutes.

I suspect if the UK ever got a working "do not call list", then the BBC would do the same thing the US companies and "free cruise!" scammers in the US have done, and just offshore the robo-calls.

I don't understand how namedropping Hexxeh is adding to this conversation. Please also check your facts: Incoming calls do not count towards your minutes allowance on UK mobiles, so that can't be the reason he paid it. Seems unlikely that the BBC managed to get his phone number either. Furthermore, if you fail to pay the license fee, you get various letters in the mail before any action is taken. On each letter are various contact details about how declare that you a) Don't have a TV, or b) "have a TV but will not pay for it because ..." It's a reasonably transparent system. - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12/ Having been through university and lived in rented accommodation, I received renewal letters because the previous tenant had a TV. It didn't take long for me to clarify the situation and stop the letters from coming. Of course, there are always some people who have a worse experience than others when it comes to things like license fee collection.. but let's not lay into the BBC without doing our homework first. (Ironic that that's why the BBC are currently being dragged through the media right now!)

The BBC are hardly any better. Whilst the BBC for generations has had a good reputation - in Scotland, the BBC are showing themselves to be a state broadcaster and at every opportunity take the unionist cause (which incidently is way off their charter). Over the last year, Scots have been subjected to TV shows about "how good it is to be British" and "why the UK is great for Scotland" which are not shown south of the border.

They have been cutting back coverage of the Scottish referendum for independence and have been accused of dirty tricks and biased reporting in the lead up to the 2014 referendum.

It's incredible since the BBC is also paid for by Scots (though a mandatory tax called the TV Licence). Scotland is hoping to be the first country to become independent without a drop of blood being spilt.

No.

As someone who has gone up against the Licence Agency before (as a student with no TV, but with internet and radio), I can vouch that this is not true. I didn't have to pay anything in the end - but only after allowing them to complete a full inspection at a time of their choosing.

Also - 'use' does not matter. If you own anything capable of receiving TV signals, i.e. a display device with a tuner (most monitors come with a digital tuner thee days :s) or a computer with TV card etc. then you must pay for a licence.

The agency themselves seem to say that 'use' is the defining point on their website - but their inspectors seem to disagree

we all have to pay a T.V. licence fee. ... Watching without paying is illegal.

It's certainly the case that certain "watching" is illegal absent a licence, but it might be worth being clear as to what is required here:

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..

Communications Act 2003, s393(1)

So, whatever a "television receiver" might be, mere ownership or possession of one does not require a licence — the requirement only kicks in if the receiver is "installed or used." ("Using" a TV means "using it for receiving television programmes" (s368(3)); using it for anything else (e.g. as a monitor for gaming, or for displaying DVDs) is not "use," although, if that was its use, I'd want to make sure it was not tuned for receiving programmes, or anything else which could be used to argue that it had been "installed".)

"Television receiver" is defined in another piece of legislation, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:

"any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."

(The repetition of "installed or used" in the definition of "television receiver" makes the s393(1) requirement somewhat circular, but ho hum...)

Further:

any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

A "television programme service" is not necessarily limited to something which enables a programme to be received "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by broadcast recipients, as the definition is that the reference to it "includes" this, rather than solely consists of it. However, TV Licensing considers that "catch-up services, like BBC iPlayer or 4oD" are not within the scope of the definition. The BBC's "No Licence Needed Policy" supports this, commenting that a licence is not required for "receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."

The end result is that watching something which is being broadcast to television receivers live or near live requires a licence — it is this "watching" which, absent a licence, is illegal. Proxying to access on-demand content, whilst potentially an infringement of copyright (and potentially an infringement on the part of the serving provider), does not mean that the requirement for a licence is breached. It is possible to watch a TV programme without a licence, fully in compliance with the law, and I would have thought that quite a few people take that option these days.

So you are "stealing".

There are certainly circumstances in which the body responsible for collecting licence fees considers that watching TV programming without a licence is not stealing, even if the law is not crystal clear on this. Whether these people are morally wrong if they watch a lot of programs on iPlayer and so on is perhaps akin to the tax avoidance debate — they are benefitting from something for which others are paying, but are not committing any legal wrong in doing so.

we all have to pay a T.V. licence fee. ... Watching without paying is illegal.

It's certainly the case that certain "watching" is illegal absent a licence, but it might be worth being clear as to what is required here:

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..

Communications Act 2003, s393(1)

So, whatever a "television receiver" might be, mere ownership or possession of one does not require a licence — the requirement only kicks in if the receiver is "installed or used." ("Using" a TV means "using it for receiving television programmes" (s368(3)); using it for anything else (e.g. as a monitor for gaming, or for displaying DVDs) is not "use," although, if that was its use, I'd want to make sure it was not tuned for receiving programmes, or anything else which could be used to argue that it had been "installed".)

"Television receiver" is defined in another piece of legislation, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:

"any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."

(The repetition of "installed or used" in the definition of "television receiver" makes the s393(1) requirement somewhat circular, but ho hum...)

Further:

any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

A "television programme service" is not necessarily limited to something which enables a programme to be received "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by broadcast recipients, as the definition is that the reference to it "includes" this, rather than solely consists of it. However, TV Licensing considers that "catch-up services, like BBC iPlayer or 4oD" are not within the scope of the definition. The BBC's "No Licence Needed Policy" supports this, commenting that a licence is not required for "receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."

The end result is that watching something which is being broadcast to television receivers live or near live requires a licence — it is this "watching" which, absent a licence, is illegal. Proxying to access on-demand content, whilst potentially an infringement of copyright (and potentially an infringement on the part of the serving provider), does not mean that the requirement for a licence is breached. It is possible to watch a TV programme without a licence, fully in compliance with the law, and I would have thought that quite a few people take that option these days.

So you are "stealing".

There are certainly circumstances in which the body responsible for collecting licence fees considers that watching TV programming without a licence is not stealing, even if the law is not crystal clear on this. Whether these people are morally wrong if they watch a lot of programs on iPlayer and so on is perhaps akin to the tax avoidance debate — they are benefitting from something for which others are paying, but are not committing any legal wrong in doing so.

Nope. If all you watch is catchup services on a device that cant receive live TV then you don't need a TV license.

From here.

Exception: If you only watch catch-up services online, then you don’t need a licence. For example, you don’t need one to use BBC iPlayer, or ITV player, to catch up on programmes after they have been shown on TV.

What about folks in Britain without a television watching the online coverage? Are they "stealing"?

Yes. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

The BBC collects its license fee itself. If you don't feel like funding the BBC, don't buy a TV.

Pedantic mode: You need to pay a license if you have any device that you use to watch or record programs as they are being broadcast (which can include computers, phones etc.). You can have a TV and not pay the license fee if you do not use it to watch programs as they are being broadcast - I didn't pay it when I was a student because I only used my TV to watch DVDs and play a games console (I didn't even have an aerial). Source: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

The Russian government likely tells RT what to say. The BBC frequently says things the the UK government doesn't want broadcast and has to take the BBC to court because it has no control over what the BBC says beyond "we might recommend to the independent review body that they cut your funding in 2016".

The BBC is also one of the few places to report on news about criticism to itself. The most recent example if reporting on a story about a presenter of one of its TV shows engaging in tax evasion. Contrast to, for example, newspapers reporting the bad things being uncovered by rival papers in the Levison enquiry, but omitting to mention anything uncovered about themselves.

please understand, that intent is not the burden in civil law: only the ability*. If you HAVE something that is capable of receiving live broadcast video, then according to the Telecommunications Act you require a license - regardless of whether or not you bought a HDMI-ported TV with the intention of plugging in an antenna or you bought it because your graphics card has an HDMI output and the TV is a quarter the price of a professional panel with the same specification. The fact is that it *can* receive a signal and decode it, therefore the finding is that you are liable.

You don’t need a TV Licence to own or possess a television set. However, if you use it to watch programmes as they are being shown on TV then you need a TV Licence in order to do so. Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 sets out the requirement for a TV Licence. Section 363 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver or possess or have control of a television receiver with the intent to install or use it or
possess or have control of a television receiver and know or have reasonable grounds for believing that another person intends to install or use it
without a valid TV Licence issued under the Communications Act. If you own or possess a television set without installing or using it as a TV receiver (e.g. you only use it to watch videos or DVDs, or as a monitor for a games console) then you don’t need a TV Licence.

(source)

The BBC cannot make a profit, due to the not-for-profit charter of the organisation it can only make periodic surpluses or deficits - over the long term they can only net off to nil. Any surplus generated on popular programmes is used to subsidise either/both the licence fee and/or unpopular but "culturally significant" or whatever programmes.

I'm not really sure you have a solid grasp of the way media or any other duplicable asset is sold. Making a sale in many different ways is not the same as "being paid at least twice". Let's say a commercially successful programme like Planet Earth costs £10m to produce, maybe it makes £3m from DVD sales, £1m from BBC America and £3m from deals with other broadcasters. The remaining £3m then comes from the licence fee pot. Maybe another series is so widely successful that it made £20m from those other sources: £10m would go into the licence fee pot, subsidising the licence fee and/or other programmes.

"They can get paid at least twice" just doesn't have any meaning. I watched Inception at the cinema with 5 friends. Did Warner get paid 6 times? Another friend bought the DVD, still another bought the Bluray. Are Warner getting paid 8 times over just between my social circle? Or is it 3? What if myself and 2 of my cinema-going friends also bought the Bluray? What if the BBC then pays to broadcast the movie? Does it matter that all of us pay the licence fee, but some of us live in shared housing and split the bill? Is it relevant that Warner arguably financed the movie from the proceeds of The Dark Knight? Many of my circle bought that in various ways too. Pretty sure the sum total of all our expenditure never covers the $160m cost, though admittedly one friend is quite well off and might have bought a special edition.

To clarify, the BBC did not have their budget cut by government as some sort of punishment for making international sales, or any reason connected with international sales. They were not allowed to increase the licence fee (allowing for inflation this is a cut) in order to cut costs for the licence-paying public. This is set out in the BBC's proposal Delivering Quality First, and many BBC and government announcements widely covered by various media. Some people argue the Tory government not liking the BBC played it's part, or the lobbying from competitors such as Murdoch, but that's conjecture and regardless still has nothing to do with international sales. Cutting the licence fee serves to increase the motivation to make international sales, in order to offset the reduction in the licence fee pot.

The 2,000 staff cut is out of a total of 18,000. Although "a very small percentage" is subjective, 11% can be in your very small opinion, but personally I'm not convinced it is an appropriate turn of phrase when describing people losing their jobs. For the avoidance of doubt I note that the 18,000 figure excludes contractors, which is appropriate because the 2,000 also excludes people losing their contracts.

You are not required to pay the TV licence to own a TV, only to watch broadcast TV (which does include recorded TV on VCR or computer, more info if required).

Technically you DO need a TV license if you watching content in the UK - even if it's on a computer

Not true.

From another page on the linked site:

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV.

And another, specifically metioning streaming.

If you don’t watch or record television programmes, or you only stream TV programmes online after they’ve been broadcast – through on-demand services like YouTube, BBC iPlayer and 4oD – you don’t need to be covered by a TV Licence.

Technically you DO need a TV license if you watching content in the UK - even if it's on a computer

Not true.

From another page on the linked site:

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV.

And another, specifically metioning streaming.

If you don’t watch or record television programmes, or you only stream TV programmes online after they’ve been broadcast – through on-demand services like YouTube, BBC iPlayer and 4oD – you don’t need to be covered by a TV Licence.

Technically you DO need a TV license if you watching content in the UK - even if it's on a computer

Not true.

From another page on the linked site:

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV.

And another, specifically metioning streaming.

If you don’t watch or record television programmes, or you only stream TV programmes online after they’ve been broadcast – through on-demand services like YouTube, BBC iPlayer and 4oD – you don’t need to be covered by a TV Licence.

Technically you DO need a TV license if you watching content in the UK - even if it's on a computer

You are incorrect. From the official TV licensing website:

If you’re watching programmes on a computer or laptop as they're being shown on TV, then you need a TV Licence. However, you don’t need to be covered by a licence if you’re only using ‘on-demand’ services to watch programmes after they have been shown on TV. So, you need a licence to watch any channel live online, but you wouldn’t need one to use BBC iPlayer to catch up on an episode of a programme you missed, for example.

(emphasis mine)

Depends, do you live in the UK? Then yes. Any apparatus capable of receiving live TV programmes needs to be licensed, there is not limitation to iplayer.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/downloads/what-if-tv-licence-is-not-needed/NoLicenceNeeded.pdf
1. Purpose
1.1 To state the BBCs policy with respect to those places, occupied as residential
        accommodation and non-residential premises, whose occupier has declared
        that there is no television receiving equipment being used at the address to
        receive live broadcasts (known as making a No Licence Needed claim).
1.2 Note that ,,television receiving equipment refers to any apparatus used for
        receiving (by any means) any television programme service as defined in the
        Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004.
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/11/made)
1.3 Note also that "received" means receiving a TV programme as it is being
        broadcast on TV. It does not include receiving programmes by means of a
        DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player.

You only need a licence to watch online if its live. If it's prerecorded (eg BBC Iplayer) - you don't. See http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104/ .

Intimidating letters, mostly. Lots of "cough up or we'll see you in court". If you say you don't have a TV, they say "alright, we'll send someone to check," but I don't know anyone who's been checked (nor what they do if you refuse them entry).

It's probably pretty easy to get away without paying, if you're that way inclined. I think most people with a TV pay up just because they don't want to be breaking the law. It helps that the BBC is pretty popular, and the license fee is less than a basic Sky subscription.

What interests me is whether it will change. I can legally get the last week of programs from their website for free (you have to pay to see it live). Which is quite good enough for me. I wonder if one day, anyone with an internet connection will have to pay. (To clarify, I wouldn't object to this)

I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.

In glorious soviet UK, we have four major TV channels (and minor channels, national and local radio stations) without commercials. This costs £145 per year ($230, or ~$20 per month). In fact, the radio channels and website can be used for free, you pay if you have a TV (although I wonder if this will change in the future).

He was lucky to get away with it - if that went to court, he'd probably lose.

Not true - You only need TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast; if you only use it to play XBOX\Wii or just to watch DVDs, then you don't need a licence. TV licensing FAQ:

You need one if you watch tv live otherwise not. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/

Fuck you Criag Mundie. Fuck you in your tiny dick hole, you elitist, ruling class, piece of shit. Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast, and will be capable of understanding that not all TV, including the news is real, or good for us?

Welcome to the "United" Kingdom. (airquotes intentional)

Watching TV on the internet You need to be covered by a licence if you watch TV online at the same time as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands. Video recorders and digital recorders like Sky+ You need a licence if you record TV as it's broadcast, whether that's on a conventional video recorder or digital box. Mobile phones A licence covers you to watch TV as it's broadcast on a mobile phone, whether you're at home or out and about.

It makes no difference how you watch TV - whether it's on your laptop, PC or mobile phone or through a digital box, DVD recorder or TV set - if you use any device to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV, the law requires you to be covered by a TV Licence.

note the "AS it's been shown "stipulation , youtube is not live so you, my friend are spreading utter FUD

Even if you only use your widescreen TV to watch Mapouka on youtube, and its not connected to an aerial, you still have to pay for a licence.

Not true. You need a license only if you are watching or recording live broadcasts. If you're not, you don't need one, even if you do have the equipment. Of course, they may suspect that you're lying, but if it isn't connected to an aerial, and it is connected to something else, you should be able to convince them.

If you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV you must, by law, be covered by a TV Licence, no matter what device you're using.

I'm guessing the executives / board / owners of the BBC know people in the right places and are able to intercept initiatives to change the legislation.

I think you'll find that the current system actually has quite a lot of public support and that a lot of the BBC-bashing comes from newspapers owned by certain large media groups.

Making the BBC a subscription service is the same thing as abolishing the BBC.

But it won't last forever

That much is true - eventually, as TV merges with the Internet, the only options will be to privatise the BBC or force internet users to pay the TV license.

If you want to add to the silliness: on their website they claim that you must pay the TV licensing even if you just watch DVDs or have the receiver at home but no TV set. But there you go.

Which website? The official TV Licensing website says that you need a license if you "watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.. DVDs are mentioned because DVD recorders have TV tuers.

(Whether they've botherd to tell the TV Licensing enforcer goon squad that, I don't know).

£115.

£142.50, I think you'll find.