tv licensing for FTA Hotbird and Astra

[Marrk]

Hi

Delicate subject this one.
Does anyone know if you need a tv license to view FTA Hotbird and Astra only?
I know i dont for viewing dvds (not recorded from the tv) and playing video games.
The BBC Licensing vermin cant seem to provide an answer. It's just that for the price
of a license as you know you could buy a basic FTA package.


Thanks

Mark

[Marrk]

My apologies i should have done more research before posting. Heres the answer to my question from
the licensing vermin. I mean authority.

Do I need a television licence if I only watch programmes received by satellite?

-
Under the Communications Act 2003, you need a television licence to receive or record television programmes. This applies if they are received by a satellite, cable or land based transmitter. If you are watching any satellite service, controlled from within or outside the UK, you must have a television licence.

You may have been informed, in the past, that a television licence was not required if you received television program services from outside the United Kingdom. This was changed in the Communications Act 2003, and if you are using your TV to receive or record television programmes broadcast by satellite from outside the UK, you are now legally required to have a TV licence.

[elton]

I didn't know that - sneeky burgers arn't they.

Thanks for posting.

[madrat]

I don't know about sneaky..........money grabbing seams a better name >

[BGonaSTICK]

Yes, a TV license is required for all TV reception. New regulations will refine that definition further to include all television streamed over IP, so no escape there either.

[jontydog]

Its about time the licence fee was scrapped and paid for by advertising. At the moment the bbc are money from the licence fee and advertising through the UKTV channels on sky and virgin. The beeb should be made to stand on its own 2 feet like all the others.

[Mickha]

I have been suggesting that the BBC be split into 2 bodies.

1 News and current affairs programmes, funded by the government, and overseen by a selct group of cross party MP's, to avoid any political interference, these few channels would be broadcast FTA.

2. All the popular channels, BBC 1, BBC 2, etc, would be scrambled, following the Digital switch over, and FTV type cards issued, this would not be a problem with satellite transmissions, as the vast majority of people, in this country, with a S*y dish, already have a card, of some description.
FTV cards could be issued to all those homes who are listed on the current television license data base, and an opt out scheme introduced.

Whereby if you really don't want to view these channels you can pay a one off administration fee, return your card, and no longer be forced to pay this tax.

It would also end license dodging, as if you don't pay you don't view, and stop oversees viewers from viewing these channels, which would be popular with the American producers as they can then have more control over who views their programmes that they have sold the rights to.
During the transission the BBC can be supported, by government help, to alow the change over of revenue to go smoothly.

This would also make the new BBC more accountable, as if you find their programming offensive, or of poor quality, you simply opt out and don't view them.

Obviously the BBC, and the government, are against this ides as they don't like to give people the choice, or the chance to avoid a tax.

[RayB]

I follow your idea in principle, but where do you put BBC Radio? What about BBCi and BBC Online? What about R&D?

The licence fee covers more than just a few TV channels you know.

[Mickha]

As far as I'm aware the license fee no longer covers radio, as when I enquired if I still had to pay the license fee if I had no television tuners, in my house, but had radios and computers, I got mixed answers, so I'd be interested to know the actual position.
But the same principles apply to radio as television, a news radio station can be provided by government money, which could include sports, and music to be sponsored by advertising.
BBC interactive, and on line, should be provided by the newly private BBC television company, if it's financially viable.
And what research and development?

[BGonaSTICK]

This could be an interesting one!

Let's chuck a few more things into the mix. Never one to stand on the sidelines, me

I think it's vitally important that this country maintains some sort of 'independent' yet powerful voice in the television, radio and online media worlds. It should be totally free of advertising. Advertising can corrupt and distort.

The French have really taken the bull by the horns with France24 and have thrown stupid amounts of French taxpayers money at it.

Why?

Because they felt they didn't have a strong voice. They are bitterly jealous of the Brits and the power and respect commanded globally by the BBC and (in my opinion) they think they are viewed as a second-tier nation when it comes to their standing in the battle for world media elbow-room. They would give their eyeteeth for a BBC, and they are building one - from the ground up.

The TV licence fee should be scrapped. This is not about paying for watching a few soaps and quizzes on your television, this is about retaining some independence, some integrity and a strong reputation for honesty and transparency. It's about technology, industry, education, research. Do not confuse the two things.

Everyone loves to knock the Beeb, but RayB is right. It's a lot more than a bit of telly. I also quite like the idea of splitting the BBC in half, because half the programming isn't worth a stuff. It's mainly the news, drama, children's programming etc. that's important. All the 'Saturday night' type programming can't get any worse, so cut it loose. All the imported American children's TV - just get rid.

You could argue that the BBC isn't independent at the moment - that it's in some way a mouthpiece for the government which funds it, but I don't personally believe it is. I won't ever be so naive as to forget that it's funded directly by government, but the government doesn't really fund it - we do. There are so many other sources of news and information out there now to help balance the once overly-dominant position of the BBC, and that's a good thing, but this new growth mustn't be allowed to strangle the host on which it has fed for all these years. There must be balance.

So how should the BBC be funded?

It should be funded by general taxation. In the same way you pay for law and order, so you should pay for a commercial-free service to supply news and current affairs programming. In the same way you pay for health care, so you should pay for home-grown original programming for the children of this country as opposed to the American crap that would inevitably replace it.

I could go on but I'll spare you an extended speech

The BBC isn't some kind of tax to be avoided, it's a responsibility that every individual should shoulder to preserve a little of what this country used to be about.