Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC Wants DRM On HD Broadcasts

Posted by Soulskill on from the dtv-drm-bbq dept.

NickFortune writes "The EFF's Danny O'Brien has pointed out that the BBC has asked a UK regulator for permission to add DRM to their high-definition broadcasts. Apparently, this is at the behest of content providers. 'BBC is proposing to encode the TV listings metadata that accompanies all digital TV channels with a simple compression algorithm. The parameters to this algorithm would be kept secret by the BBC: it would ask manufacturers to sign a private agreement in order to receive a copy. This license would require the implementation of pervasive DRM in the equipment they build.' Ofcom, the regulatory body in question, has detailed the proposal asked for comments, but the window closes today."

52 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Damn you BBC! Damn you to HELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    a simple compression algorithm. The parameters to this algorithm would be kept secret by the BBC

    My GOD! Hackers will *NEVER* figure this one out!

  2. Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The people who pay the BBC certainly don't want this, and it certainly doesn't add anything of value. Stop this now, BBC. Is it silly season with legislation all of a sudden?

  3. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes I just bought one a few weeks ago to replace an early digital CRT.
    I was surprised to find that it had a USB input, and read from mass storage devices, (albeit only FAT32) and could decode divX, xvid, mp3 and ogg.

    TV manufactures now that everybody torrents, (Heroes 55 million, Lost 51 million, international favourite Top gear), and are just giving people what they want.
    As for the DRM on HD, well whatever. I really don't have the bandwidth to throw away on HD content right now, but when it catches up...sure, I'll torrent that too.

  4. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by quarkoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    It would be nice if you got your facts in order before mouthing off.

    There is no fine/tax on the purchase of a new TV (I don't think I know a single person who calls them 'tellys' any more).

    There is a licence fee - GBP142.50 a year. For that, we get many TV channels, umpteen national radio stations and even more local radio stations.

    All of it without adverts.

    News quality is absolutely superb. I think it's the biggest news broadcaster in the world which is not owned by some media billionaire or controlled by government. Personally, I'd trust the BBC news over any other source (note I'm not saying they're perfect though).

    As a Brit, I'm proud of the BBC. Having visited many many countries, I can safely say there is absolutely no competition. None at all.

    Nick.

  5. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can safely say there is absolutely no competition. None at all.

    That's usually the case with government-sponsored monopolies.

  6. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, I modded the parent by mistake, so I'm mainly posting to undo that.

    However, it is worth pointing out that the parent is misleading on several counts. The BBC's public funding comes primarily from the licence fee rather than a tax on new TV purchases, and the BBC is not the same as the government. I have a suspicion that the whole post might have been meant as humour/irony, but if so, I'm afraid it failed: it's too close to the truth to be ironic, yet too wrong to be informative.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  7. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by WelshRarebit · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I was surprised to find that it had a USB input, and read from mass storage devices, (albeit only FAT32) and could decode divX, xvid, mp3 and ogg.

    You shouldn't be. Most TV's these days have a full computer inside them, and a large percentage of them run Linux. Here's the list of Sony TV's that run Linux, for example.

  8. Bad summary by yoriz · · Score: 5, Informative

    BBC uses a simple huffman compression to reduce the volume of the EPG data. By that, they violate the DVB standard and thus are contemplating whether they should ask for licensing fee and treat it as a proprietary extension to the standard, or whether they should publish all details and ask for it to be integrated in the DVB standard.

    1. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong. Read the actual letter. The compression algorithm used is freely available. The compression look up tables have been tuned to specifically work well on the EPG data and as such are copyright the BBC.

      The BBC is suggesting that they be allowed to only give the tables to STB manufacturers that honour the DVB equivalent of the broadcast flag which prevents copying recorded programs off PVRs. Thus giving STB manufacturers a choice: allow the user to copy shows off the box, or allow the user to have an EPG, but not both. Guess which one 99.9% of consumers actually want.

    2. Re:Bad summary by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then I'll take "copy the shows off the box" and use online program guides.

  9. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 3, Informative

    You really don't have a clue, do you? The BBC is not government sponsored, neither is it a monopoly.

    Prawn!.

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
  10. Hooray for the BBC - clever move by mattbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just from the summary, this sounds like the BBC are proposing a tiny, insignicant technical change to their metadata broadcast and presenting to rightsholders as a complicated and cast-iron DRM solution. Of course it's nothing of the sort, will probably never get implemented, and if it were, sounds like it would be trivial to work around (if only by getting your listings data from an external source, of which there are several!) So I think this is just singing a song the rightsholders want to hear; I'm pretty certain nobody technical at the BBC gives a hoot about implementing DRM, and would see it as an unwelcome obstacle to doing their job.

    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
  11. What Part of "No" Don't You Understand? by ewhac · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Forgive my Yankee naïvate, but doesn't the BBC have a mandate to serve the public interest, since they're funded in large part by compulsory license fees charged to all television owners? I'd be interested to know how they're justifying this request to regulators and to the fee-paying public.

    Schwab

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
    1. Re:What Part of "No" Don't You Understand? by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Informative

      The BBC is only required to broadcast to the British public free of charge, not to provide their titles for free (hence they charge for DVDs and such).

      They also don't exclusively show content they have full rights to. For example sporting events, Hollywood movies and so on have restrictions on how they can show them.

    2. Re:What Part of "No" Don't You Understand? by Shimbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be interested to know how they're justifying this request to regulators and to the fee-paying public.

      Since Ofcom _are_ the reguator, you can do the former by reading the letter.

      In the end it's whether the content providers are bluffing, and really would refuse bids from the BBC for premium events if they refused to go along.

    3. Re:What Part of "No" Don't You Understand? by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

      > This is incorrect. The BBC is not free of charge.

      And the company which sells DVDs is not the same BBC, but a spin-off, which clearly is allowed to charge.

  12. Re:Modern DRM is non-scientific by bcmm · · Score: 2, Funny

    You remind me of Gene Ray, except that I agree with your basic sentiment.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  13. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Informative

    hefty fine on the purchase of any new TV set.

    Uhh, not quite. You need a licence to watch broadcast TV, per household. So if you have 10 TVs, you still only need one licence. If you don't connect any TV to an aerial, i.e. you use it for a console or DVDs, you don't need a licence.

    The annual cost is £140 odd a year; £12 or about $20 a month. For that we get 4 main tv channels, 4 minor ones, 7 national and a whole bunch of local radio stations, and arguably the best news website on the planet. All commercial advert free. Personally, I think the BBC TV is pretty good; their documentaries and nature programmes are top notch, at least, and they get the important sports rights, again free to watch. Nor is it government run, or funded; the tax is collected by a separate body, and given direct to the BBC, with no government control over editorial or programming decisions.

    How much is the average cable subscription in the US - with adverts - again?

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  14. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's too close to the truth to be ironic, yet too wrong to be informative.

    Let's see... A post that contains enough truth to be convincing but enough falsehoods to be completely wrong. It's almost like the post is designed to elicit responses.

    What did we used to call that kind of post? What's the word? Oh, yes.

    Underrated.

  15. Uhm - No, thanks. by wild_quinine · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The BBC is paid for by license payers - not taxpayers, but it's a similar arrangement. I'm not even sure they should be allowed to sell DVDs back to us in the first place, since we're the ones who paid for them to be made, but I absolutely draw the line at letting them digitally protect the content I paid for. They can digitally protect it when they're footing the damn bill.

    Obviously this doesn't apply to third party shows they buy in, but for their own stuff, absolutely no protection at all, thanks.

  16. Re:Damn you BBC! Damn you to HELL! by lorenlal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I'm completely sure that all the legitimate home watchers will have no problem with their existing HD digital TVs requiring a decoder, and it'll do so much good cause you can just put your freaking DVR in after the decoder right?

    Or will this force the Brits to have to shell out for a new TV?

    Yea, solid idea. The DMCA thinks this is a bit too much...

  17. Get stuffed BBC by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First the BBC expects me to put up with rubbish SD quality digital television called "Freeview", analogue TV picture and audio is being deliberately degraded to make Freeview look good before the analogue switch off. Then as soon as a few* people** watch the "test" transmission from satellite of some BBC content in HD, they want to cripple it.

    Go f-off BBC, like others, I pay a huge amount in a compulsory BBC tax every year for a progressively worse service and worse programming content. Freeview (digital tv) being pushed by the BBC is rubbish, DAB (digital radio) also being pushed by the BBC is also rubbish, now you want to turn HD into cr@p.

    BTW, we don't want the HD channel wasted with hundreds of hours of pointless Olympics in 2012, shove that cr@p on your Freeview instead.

    * Seriously, there can't be many with HD satellite in the UK....

    ** I got my Linux box to work with watching satellite HD. Ironically Windows is very problematic with HD and numerous flakey video watching / recording applications (even the paid stuff).

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Get stuffed BBC by AnonymouseClown · · Score: 2, Informative

      they aren't reducing analogue power to make it look bad, they're doing it in accordance with the plan that's been set for about 10 years as part of the switch over. freeview and analogue share frequencies so in essence it's one or the other. freeview power on my local mast is currently at 20% of the total - solely so that it doesn't interfere with analogue too much. i can't wait until they switch off analogue completely so that they finally have the bandwidth to display stuff at full power and with far more HD channels. as much as you might like to think it's a conspiracy it's actually for good technical reasons.

    2. Re:Get stuffed BBC by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The BBC does not expect anything from you. Freeview is just the trading name for DTV Services, which is owned by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky and transmitter operator Arqiva. Most of the channels are produced by independent companies. Also, most of it isn't SD, unless SD means 15 Mbps @ 1024*768. I rate SD as 800*600 or lower. Old shows are low quality, but that's because they're old. You're just a troll. What we actually have is higher quality video, and more choice. What did we have before, 5 channels ? Now I have 18 programmed in and about another 70 I ignore. All for the same price licence. I did have reservations before the switchover because I had a lot of interference from traffic, but now the analogue has gone, my power levels have gone right up as has the signal quality. The BER is hardly registering a tick. I have 2 cards that together can record 2 multiplexes simultaneously. That can be up to 8 separate channels all at once. I can then view the recording and change channel within it. Did analogue have that capability ? I can also separate out individual programs from those recorded multiplexes and save them as standalone files.

      As for DAB you are probably quite wrong there too. It's main problem is the up front costs, and as things are tight, nobody wants to run a station and nobody wants to retrofit their cars with new radios for only a few stations. The technology is way better than FM. The BBC didn't invent it, they just thought it would be good, so they helped push it out.

  18. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by abigsmurf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sky TV have over 240 channels. The BBC has 8. Doesn't really sound like a monopoly does it.

    The BBC is not government sponsored at all (except for the BBC World service). The money the BBC gets is collected by the BBC and is never even seen by the Government.

  19. Ok, I don't see how this works practically... by colinnwn · · Score: 2

    First I am a little surprised that the British TV market is big enough, TV manufacturers would be interested in dealing with the code, regulatory requirements, and litigation risks to failure, of a single network's DRM request, just to sell TVs in that market. Though now that every TV basically contains a computer, rather than custom silicon, perhaps the code requirements are minor.

    Second, is BBC the only supplier of TV programming in the British market (aside from satellite)? If there are other minor networks, that want to specify their own DRM or just don't want to participate, I'd think the TV manufacturers would be apoplectic.

  20. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

    IS there a British equivalent of "Elmo knows where you live!"?

  21. We pay the TV Licence. by lattyware · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The BBC's content is our content. Give it to us unmolested please. It's not like people are not going to let the BBC show their series unless there is DRM there.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  22. Content providers by RalphSleigh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Given the Beebs previous actions with the iplayer, I am going to believe for now this is only because the content providers have requested it. The BBC does sometimes show imported shows like The Wire, Heroes, etc. The makers of these shows are probably reluctant to let the BBC broadcast them in HD without any sort of copy protection*. This is the same problem that made them use DRM on the iplayer, first windows only and now the adobe stuff. (They had the cross platform air application out the same day adobe released air, and even published a news story on their website talking about how some people had broken the windows DRM they were using and what the program was called hint hint nudge nudge.)

    *because then us Brits might put them on bittorrent, instead of downloading the American ones that are released months/years earlier. The only time I ever saw a show from here first was some of the last Stargate SG1, because Sky (a UK satellite TV outfit, not free or unencrypted) didn't have the mid season break. Look at the channel ident from any torrent to get a good idea of where it aired first.

    --
    Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
  23. Clarification by Spad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not entirely sure what the actual reasoning behind this is. It seems as if:

    • The rights holders won't let the BBC and other free-to-air networks broadcast their stuff in HD without DRM
    • None (or very few) of the current Freeview/Freesat (DVB) hardware supports their DRM
    • In order to get the DRM-compatibility out there ASAP the BBC have come up with the idea of trivially encoding their EPG data and then requiring hardware manufacturers to implement the DRM if they want a license to use the "keys" to the EPG data (Note that this is not the same as the EPG data being protected by the DRM)

    It's a clever idea but I can only assume that some or all of the non-terrestrial networks operating in the UK have already agreed to the demands of the rights-holders, otherwise the BBC (and other free-to-air networks) could simply refuse to do anything about it - after all, the content providers aren't going to get very far if they refuse to allow their stuff aired on any networks because none of them will broadcast it with DRM in place.

    As a license-payer I can't say I like it, but with the info I have I can't see that the BBC has much choice in the matter; either they and the other FTA networks agree to broadcast some or all HD content with DRM or the idiot content providers won't sell shows to them any more.

    1. Re:Clarification by jimicus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great. There's only one minor problem I can see with this.

      All the millions of cheap no-brand freeview boxes which are produced with a different chipset and firmware from one week to the next and the manufacturer lost any interest in supporting it years ago. I know the DVB standard allows firmware updates to be sent over the air, but how often does that happen with the cheap & nasty boxes?

  24. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by N!k0N · · Score: 2, Funny

    Straight from the BBC offices:
    BBC DRM guy 1: We need a way to keep these sneaky people from stealing our HD
    BBC DRM Guy 2: oh! I know! how about we encrypt it some how

    (some time passes)
    BBC DRM Guys (in unison) I've got it! we'll use the key 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0....

  25. Re:Damn you BBC! Damn you to HELL! by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My GOD! Hackers will *NEVER* figure this one out!

    That is not the point. The intent here is to create a "protection mechanism" via "technical device" (however ineffective) which serves to trigger the portion of the DMCA law (Britain probably has equivalent legal language now due to copyright "normalization" treaties) which makes circumvention without permission or fair dealing (which requires a specially granted exemption from Library of Congress here in the United States) unlawful. In other words, it doesn't matter that they locked the door with chwing gum and rubber bands, you still "broke in" according to the letter of the law and they can still sue you. In these cases the "protection mechanism" is only there to create enough of a speed bump to trigger the anti-circumvention laws, NOT to present a real technical challenge to hackers.

  26. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by barq · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Can I buy a TV just to play games on it without paying the tax?"

    Yes.

    The license fee is payable yearly, not at the point of purchase. If your TV isn't hooked up to receive television then you don't have to pay the license fee.

  27. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by ^Bobby^ · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is incorrect.

    You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.

    http://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensing/main/answerPage?_mftvst:answerRef=%24http%3A%2F%2Fapi.transversal.com%2Fmfapi%2Fobjectref%2FEntryStore%2FEntry%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.metafaq.com%2Fmfapi%2FMetafaq%2FClients%2Ftvlicensing%2FModules%2FlicensingInfo%2FTopics%2Fgeneral%3A134832%3A5&_mftvst:moduleID=%24licensingInfo&_mftvst:topicID=%24&id=HS56T6VEPE7PUG02M2572GVV3M

  28. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by profplump · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're right, the BBC collects their license fee. Under force of law, from anyone receiving broadcast TV, whether they use BBC services or not. You're being intentionally ignorant if you claim that's not a government-mandated tax.

  29. Re:Begging to be hacked! by nametaken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They know that. The important part is that it makes you a criminal in a way you weren't before.

  30. Another nail in the coffin by charliemopps11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These large media companies better learn quick that they are not going to save their industry by making it harder to access their media. As it is now, to get media I have to buy equipment, have it installed, get the dish pointed correctly... it cuts out during storms. Cables isn't much better. The force me to order channels in "Packages" so 90% of the channels I get are either espn (dont want) or home shopping network. I have absolutely no option to get rid of these channels. When I want a DVD they delay the release for months, but will release it in other country's first. I can't order it from those countrys becuase of my DVD players country code. Then they release 1 version of the movie... wait 6 months and release an extended version of the movie... then wait another 6 months and release a directors cut and then even a "Series" pack where you can get all the sequels. OR... I can go to a torrent site... click on the movie. 8hrs later I have the full, directors cut, with all the extra features, in english and I don't have to drive anywhere. Talk about a service I'd be willing to pay for. Oh wait, they wont let me pay for it. Morons.

  31. Re:Begging to be hacked! by theaveng · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >>>It has the incidental effect of making anyone using linux and a DTV card to recieve the broadcasts act illegally

    I match your DRM and raise with a semiautomatic aimed at the nearest MP.

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  32. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    News quality is absolutely superb.

    It used to be good. Now its just government supporting propoganda and bullshit.

    I think it's the biggest news broadcaster in the world which is not owned by some media billionaire or controlled by government.

    It is controlled by government, just not officially.

  33. Re:Damn you BBC! Damn you to HELL! by BeardedChimp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been following the BBC's internet blog for quite a while (it's pretty good) and their engineers always come across as hating DRM and if they had the choice they wouldn't use it at all.
    A few months ago one of them said they were pushing to keep any content produced by the BBC DRM free and that it was only because of licensed content that they employed any DRM at all.
    Based on this I'm guessing this is the upper echelons of the beeb looking to push this.

  34. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by the_lesser_gatsby · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not a tax. It is a toll for a service.

  35. Re:Damn you BBC! Damn you to HELL! by Hertzyscowicz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a simple compression algorithm. The parameters to this algorithm would be kept secret by the BBC

    My GOD! Hackers will *NEVER* figure this one out!

    The real killer, however, is that it probably isn't quite trivial to install the circumvention software on the actual TV set. So, even when it is cracked, as well as in the meanwhile, the majority of HD TV owners are going to have to shell out for new hardware.

  36. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So... it's not a tax and not government-controlled, but your only options are to pay it or not watch television? I guess there's no vehicle tax either, since you could always walk everywhere. Or is there some way to shut off whatever part of the TV is devoted to picking up broadcast signals, so that you can legally have a TV without paying this "optional" fee?

    Federal income taxes are optional here in the US too -- you have the option of not making any income. This option is chosen by the very poor and very rich alike!

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
  37. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by mftb · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they can't prove you've been watching broadcasts, they can't have you. Yeah, you could leave your tv unplugged from the aerial and you'd be fine.

  38. Re:Damn you BBC! Damn you to HELL! by JTL21 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually there is no legal impediment to accessing the fta video and audio.

    The only restriction is on accessing the metadata and that is only that the BBC claim it is a breach of their copyright in the compression tables.

    The DTLA say that manufacturers of DTCP products MUST NOT apply DRM to FTA content. BBC are trying to argue to DTLA that content is protected and to Ofcom that it is fta.

    Request to Ofcom is very misleading in several ways. E.g. The D book version with content protection requirements has not been agreed. Major bust up with Samsung and Sony opposed to BBC. Broadcast meant to start 2nd December but spec and broadcasting license not sorted shows the mess the BBC is making.

  39. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by natehoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's tough to compare a US Cable subscription with the BBC system because they are different types of service.

    The Cable system includes wired delivery to your home, which the British system (as I understand it) does not. BBC is broadcast TV, correct? The BBC doesn't run a coaxial cable from their offices to your house and guarantee you reception, do they?

    I currently have a 14-channel lineup which I pay $12US for. But most of those channels would be available to me free over the air if I chose to hook up my antenna and watch them that way, so comparing my 14 channels at $12 with advertising to your 15 channels for $20 without advertising is a somewhat meaningless comparison.

    I'm paying for guaranteed delivery of a service into my house. If my Cable TV goes out for more than 4 hours in a given day, the Cable company is contractually obligated to refund me the equivalent of one days' delivery charge. I also have perfect reception all the time, and a support desk that will send out someone to fix it if I don't.

    I'm mostly paying for the delivery of the TV stations (though some of my subscription fee certainly goes into content). The ads, by and large, pay for the content.

    Of course, as you add the additional 80-1000 channels you COULD get on my cable system and get into the $50-200 a month range, certainly a significant amount of that money is paying for content, and you still have ads. But since you used a limited-lineup BBC-style system, I only felt it fair to compare that to the closest analogue here in the States.

    I can't include radio, because that's a completely separate thing here. Radio stations are all (as far as I've ever heard) free, and are all paid for with advertising.

    The only exception would be the National Public Radio system, which is paid for by a blend of sources including listener donations, corporate underwriting, and US Government taxpayer dollars. They acknowledge their underwriters, but do not engage in actual advertising per se.

    Having said all that, I'd MUCH rather pay AN ADDITIONAL $20 a month and get advert-free programming where a one hour show is actually one hour long. The US standard seems to have devolved to about 38 minutes for a one-hour show, and 19 or so for a 1/2-hour show, and some of that is credits, the opening theme, etc.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  40. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by vidarh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's being pedantic. The Crown is part of government, and anything "mandated by the Crown" is done so by convention only, under direction of parliament - it's been that way at least since the 18th century when the principle of parliamentary sovereignty was firmly established in British constitutional law.

  41. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd have to disagree. I've lived in other countries - Holland, Belgium and the USA. I might add that I can follow Dutch language tv. I resent been forced to pay a licence for the BBC and the adverts in the USA are too frequent, which is why I had TiVo there. Got one here too.
    ...

    On the other hand: I for one am glad to be able to get the extra BBC-channels into my home, even while it costs me 60 pounds a year extra. Yes, in Holland the BBC-channels are widely appreciated, and sometimes better valued than the Dutch counterparts.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  42. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by Inda · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fine? How about prison?

    It's said that a lot of women are in prison because they cannot pay the fines from not having a TV license.

    BBC admits going too far with TV license reminder slogan 'Your Arse Won't be Safe in Prison'

    I jest?

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  43. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by jabuzz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes he is the BBC operates under a Royal Charter, and has nothing to do with the executive. The license fee is collected by a none governmental organization, and goes direct to the BBC. They are also responsible for enforcement of the license fee, but they are *NOT* part of the government. Just like if I where to somehow hack Sky's encryption and watch their excuse for TV without paying them any money they could take me to court and have me fined.

    At no point does any money pass through HM Treasury.

  44. Re:You're obliged to pay for it by discord5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's not a tax. It is a toll for a service.

    That's a nice television you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.