Hacker News Reader

Comment by blargthorwars | Hacker News Reader

Imagine needing a government licence to look at a screen.

Its a hypothocated tax.

Its not required to "look at a screen". its required to watch broadcast TV and use the BBc's online TV services. You can watch as much as you like on Youtube or Netflix or whatever without paying it.

it was very good value for money when half of all TV output (and the better half) was from the BBC and ad free.

> You can watch as much as you like on Youtube or Netflix or whatever without paying it.

Careful here because there is live TV on Youtube and a valid licence is required to watch that. There are also live shows on Netflix, which may count as "live TV programmes" so requiring a licence.

You're moving the goalposts.

Watching non-live BBC programmes in the UK legally requires a license fee. The same is not true of Netflix.

The way it’s worded it is that any thing that could be deemed “live TV” is liable for the tax regardless of who produced the content.

Are you suggesting that there's significant ambiguity about what "live TV" means?

Yes. TNT shows live TV for example, last I checked they were produced by the UFC rather than BBC.

The UK law is specifically designed to cover this. It's not some weird thing. Any "live TV" requires a license even if you watch it via streaming services.

If the law intends this, this is specifically a very weird thing. Why would the law intend to make people pay the BBC to watch UFC?

The law did not really intend this as it was written when "live TV" meant sitting in front of an actual TV. Since then it has been interpreted as covering everything, I think to protect revenues and deter even more people from ditching their TV licence.

> Watching non-live BBC programmes in the UK legally requires a license fee. The same is not true of Netflix.

Agreed but this is not what I commented on (no goalpost moved...)

It has to be television. So i think it depends on the particular live stream you watch - e.g. one that is also on a TV channel at the same time.

https://www.gov.uk/find-licences/tv-licence https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ33

The example given by TV licensing is Sky News. it has to be part of a "television programme"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

Yes, you highlight that a TV livence may be required for some content on Youtube. It is apparently also required for some content (live) on Netflix [1]. For example it seems that WWE Raw, which is live and on Netflix is deemed "live TV" [1]:

"Services include YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Now, Sky Go, BBC iPlayer, ITVX and more. Live TV or events can include:

Champions League matches or live channels on Amazon Prime Video

WWE or NFL events on Netflix

News or sports channels on YouTube"

It's a bit of a mess...

[1] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/w...

It's a historical accident. At first there was no TV, so when the BBC started broadcasting I suppose it made sense. Moving away from that seems to be difficult without them introducing advertising for live TV, which would be a quick fix, but that seems to be a diminishing market.

For streaming it's easy to manage.

It's not an accident. Funding state media with a licence fee instead of from the taxes/state budget, makes it harder to exert political control over said state media.

Yes, good point.

No accident at all, in fact Lord Reith wanted the BBC to create the correct British values, i.e. to speak with a particular accent, to be loyal to the royal family and not to get involved in anything that was a threat to the system. The service was very much centred on London, with some paltry "regional" services.

The creation of ITV was supposed to provide an alternative, but was all too cosy and even today ITV pushes much the same programming as the BBC in outlook and news etc. The first real threat was pirate radio, which proved more popular than the BBC, and forced them to introduce Radio 1 for pop music.

Channel 4 was supposed to provide further competition, but in fact it was VCRs and video hire that really undermined the BBC's monopoly in the 80s. By the 90s, they were outclassed by satellite broadcasting (particularly sports and films). By the late 1990s, internet was breaking the state stranglehold on news and information... Leading to a crackdown in the 2010s with whatever scarestories they could come up with like cyberbullying, terrorism, pro-ana, porn etc.

Now the BBC are saying they want a fee for mobile phone and internet usage, although they haven't succeeded in that yet. Both of which are pretty much mandatory now.

You mean like digital ID? Don't worry, we'll all need it to watch screens soon.

In Turkey and Israel you need a licence for radios as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com