FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[McLaren]

I love F1 BUT sky for god sake stop advertising the new F1 channel please,it's driving me mad.Every set of adverts,fact is I'm watching a HD channel so i have to have the channel already
Theres only so many times you can watch the same repeat ,even if it's something you like.

[LRW]

...... a TV licence is even required to own a PC now because it's technically capable to receiving TV Signals![/i]

That is actually incorrect.

[scotty]

Are Sky doing a post race forum type thing like the BBC do?

[LRW]

Are Sky doing a post race forum type thing like the BBC do?

I believe they are.

[myownalias]

...... a TV licence is even required to own a PC now because it's technically capable to receiving TV Signals!

That is actually incorrect.

Incorrect in which way? the year before I moved to the United States, I recieved a letter after purchasing a new laptop informing me that I would require a TV licence to use my new toy, because it is capable with a USB tuner to receive TV signals, which is stupid, if they checked their records, they would have seen that I had a valid TV licence with 8 months to run on it!

[LRW]

Just watching a '2011 Season Review' on SkyF1. Watched the British F1 with quite some interest, as I was there, and didnt see the indepth stuff on TV.

Amazing how much Redbull screwed Webber over with Team orders. What was more interesting was, it all came from the instruction of Vettel......

So Webber was in 3rd, all over back of Vettel. With Alonso about 16sec ahead in 1st.

Radio Transmittals:
Vettel to Horner: Do the sensible thing. Do the sensible thing.
Horner to Vettel: Understood, Seb, Understood.
Horner to Webber: Maintain the gap Mark, Maintain the gap
Webber to Horner:Radio Silence.........
Webber weaving left to right, inches from Vettel tailpipe....
Horner to Webber: Maintain the gap Mark, Maintain the gap
Webber to Horner:Radio Silence.........

Sometimes you wonder how drivers like Webber and Massa get the motivation to get up in the morning when they are treated the way they are....

[LRW]

Incorrect in which way? the year before I moved to the United States, I recieved a letter after purchasing a new laptop informing me that I would require a TV licence to use my new toy, because it is capable with a USB tuner to receive TV signals, which is stupid, if they checked their records, they would have seen that I had a valid TV licence with 8 months to run on it!

Incorrect as in, you only need a licence IF you watch live broadcasted material. If, say for instance, you used it just to view stuff on iPlayer, then you do not need one.

So you dont have to have one, just for owning a laptop.

link here

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

BUT I do agree that they assume everyone needs to buy one. It seems you need to prove you dont need it. Guilty until proven innocent.

[andrew]

...... a TV licence is even required to own a PC now because it's technically capable to receiving TV Signals!

That is actually incorrect.

Incorrect in which way? the year before I moved to the United States, I recieved a letter after purchasing a new laptop informing me that I would require a TV licence to use my new toy, because it is capable with a USB tuner to receive TV signals, which is stupid, if they checked their records, they would have seen that I had a valid TV licence with 8 months to run on it!

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

A reminder of the law
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.

Only if your PC has a tuner then.

So you're both right but in different ways.

[LRW]

Only if your PC has a tuner then.

So you're both right but in different ways.

Well, not liking to be picky, BUT only I was right. MOA stated you needed a licence to OWN a PC. Not a PC with a tuner, but a PC. So I was right.



But its really disgusting the way you are treated. If you feel you dont need a licence, you have to fill in a decleration, saying "i dont need one". And THEN they come to your house and check. all because 1 in 5 lie about it. Its an outrage!! And then you have to repeat that process all over again..... 2 years later!!

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

If you ask me, if you dont need one. then you shouldnt just not buy one, and be left alone!!

[myownalias]

Ah but, to throw a spanner in the works, you have the ability to watch live TV via the iPlayer, it's not exclusively "catch up" TV; some huge contradictory statements in the BBC licence T&Cs!

Additionally I do not agree with a TV licencing system because even if you don't watch the BBC, you still have to pay for it, and getting back to SKY, with satellite TV, you have the option of paying for the services or not, you are not forced into paying a fee for a service whether you use it or not, I personally think it's time to abolish the licence and the BBC can advertise commercially!

[zurich_allan]

It seems you need to prove you dont need it. Guilty until proven innocent.

I see what you're saying, but you're not quite correct. You're not guilty until proven innocent, the system is built on an assumption that people require a tv licence as the vast (over 99% of the population) do. The responsibility is then placed on somebody not requiring a licence to bring this to the attention of the licensing authority as a matter of general public importance. This is not guilty until proven innocent, it's simply placing the burden of proof on the member of the public, you are not declared 'guilty' unless following the due process it can be established that the person claiming exemption is in fact breaking the law. There's a massive difference between shifting the burden of proof (something that is done in vast amounts of legal circumstances) and being guilty until proven innocent - if it's the former it's legal in various circumstances, if it's the latter it's in breach of both domestic and international law.

And that said, yes I agree that the licence fee should be abolished altogether - the BBC is already a commercial station, they just don't have revenue from advertising - they do however make millions from commercial sales of their programmes (Doctor Who for example) to both foreign nations and through dvd sales and merchandising. In this day and age to have a compulsory license fee for an organisation that can legally make as much money as they like from various other avenues is simply disgusting.

Sky on the other hand, people may say it's expensive, others may say it's not - it's all a matter of individual personal circumstance whether that's the case or not - NOBODY can legitimately say that it's too expensive as a broad statement as it's literally impossible to qualify. For me it's affordable, but for others it very well might not be. I just wish people would stop saying that they're 'paying £30 a month for one channel', because they're not. They're just not. Like it or not, it is £30 a month for a LOT of channels. Yes there's a lot of crap channels, but there are also a number of channels that are simply excellent. Ultimately though people have a choice unlike for the BBC, you can buy sky or not, that's a choice you make given the overall costs and your overall circumstances. Either do it, accepting the terms and conditions or don't. Don't buy it then moan, because that's what you have agreed to, and don't NOT buy it and then moan, because you can still watch many races for free on BBC and the rest with extended highlights - if you DON'T buy it and still want to moan then the correct establishment to moan to is the BBC as it was them that sold out when they still had a year on their contract - NOT sky's fault for then buying in as they had every right to do so.

[LRW]

It seems you need to prove you dont need it. Guilty until proven innocent.

I see what you're saying, but you're not quite correct. You're not guilty until proven innocent, the system is built on an assumption that people require a tv licence as the vast (over 99% of the population) do. The responsibility is then placed on somebody not requiring a licence to bring this to the attention of the licensing authority as a matter of general public importance. This is not guilty until proven innocent, it's simply placing the burden of proof on the member of the public, you are not declared 'guilty' unless following the due process it can be established that the person claiming exemption is in fact breaking the law. There's a massive difference between shifting the burden of proof (something that is done in vast amounts of legal circumstances) and being guilty until proven innocent - if it's the former it's legal in various circumstances, if it's the latter it's in breach of both domestic and international law.

Sorry, I didnt mean guilty, as in trying to get away with not paying for it. I was trying to make a point, and confused the matter. What I was trying to say, is what you have put very clearly, that the burden of proof is put on the member of the public. In my opinion - THAT IS WRONG!!

[LRW]

Ah but, to throw a spanner in the works, you have the ability to watch live TV via the iPlayer, it's not exclusively "catch up" TV; some huge contradictory statements in the BBC licence T&Cs!

Additionally I do not agree with a TV licencing system because even if you don't watch the BBC, you still have to pay for it, and getting back to SKY, with satellite TV, you have the option of paying for the services or not, you are not forced into paying a fee for a service whether you use it or not, I personally think it's time to abolish the licence and the BBC can advertise commercially!

Really? If you go via this link, I can only find 'catch-up' TV. I agree BBC let you watch live streaming through website pages - but didnt know you could do it through the iplayer??

As for the TV licecnce, I am very torn. I do feel aggrieved (in principal) at having to pay for a channel, regardless of if i watch it or not. Especially when they have plenty of money to spend on crap like strictly celebrity come dancing on ice, in the jungle, but can find a couple of quid to pay for 24 cars chasing each other around a looped piece of tarmac.

BUT, on the other hand, I do love watching TV without crappy adverts! God forbid if it got to how it is in other (unnamed) countries, where they have TV adverts every 7 minutes.

Its a toughie. but on balance, and due to the fact I do watch a fair amount of BBC programing, and use their web facilities, Im willing to carry on with things as they are.

[geetface9]

[i]
BUT, on the other hand, I do love watching TV without crappy adverts! God forbid if it got to how it is in other (unnamed) countries, where they have TV adverts every 7 minutes.

By unnamed country you mean the U.S. It's ok, I live here, and I can't stand the ads. I hardly bother watching tv for anything except F1 any more because I can tell how hard they're trying to indoctrinate me.

[myownalias]

Really? If you go via this link, I can only find 'catch-up' TV. I agree BBC let you watch live streaming through website pages - but didnt know you could do it through the iplayer?

Using that link, if you look on the left where the channel links are; above the schedule, there's a link to watch live, you simply select a different channel to watch another live channel.