What's your take on the fact that...

[dyli795]

What's your take on the fact that T.V. is coming to the internet? Not a bad idea realy ; inavetable I suppose, but oh dear! what about the T.V. licence? Will it be the end of the blackmail that goes on? (anywhere else in the world you go to a shop, buy a T.V., take it home, plug it in and see what it does. But the Brits [that's us] do things another way or we wouldn't be Brits! I would forever stand for the quality of BBC as being 2nd to none when it comes to entertainment and / or information, and that goes for anything on a global scale. But that bloomin' licence fee (IT'S THE LAW ! ! !) it realy gets to you don't it? I think i'm prepared to take my chances with comercialism. Talk Sport is no disservice for instance. what's your opinion? (I can't spell by the way 'cos I'm daft)

[pagey]

Its unfair by today's standards but worth it not to see adverts once in a while. Adverts cost you more.

The internet will eventually be used for most media. Phone, TV, radio, publications etc.

[anotheoldgit]

How long before they tax the internet, via your provider?

[lady_p_gold]

Try watching TV in America for a few weeks, you don't know how lucky you are. A one hour episode of Midsomer Murders takes two hours with all the ads.

[Oneeyedvic]

There is a program in Australia, similar to Good Morning - half way through, they stop the show, go over to a sponsor for around 20 mins (who does a QVC style presentation), then come back to the show.

As ladyp says, you really don't know how lucky you are until you go abroad.

[Oneeyedvic]

You also have the issue of impartiality - Jeremy Clarkson once said that Top Gear can only be made in Britain - no where else would allow you to slag off cars that are a potential advertiser.

[libertie]

The mere fact that I can sit for a half hour or so and not have to watch an advert for a new sofa makes it worth every single penny! How bluddy annoying are those ads!!!!

[jake-the-peg]

How can you seriously post a question acknowwleging how great the BBC is and then moan about being made to pay 36p a day for it?

You're lucky to get a pint of milk for that!

As for internet access to Television programs. Chane 4's simulcasts are only available to internet users in the UK. It's relatively easy to check that.

At the moment it's unlikely that many people are going to get rid of a TV and just watch the internet but if it did happen it'd be a relatively easy thing to change the law so that you needed a TV license to get a broadband connection fast enough to make it usable

[Llamatron]

I am really looking forward to internet TV and all this TV on demand malarky and the inevitable unskippable commercials.
Er..........

[Dolly1308]

oneeyedvic could you tell me please what the programme is called in Australia which goes to a QVC style presentation for 20 mins, during the programme? by the way what exactly is a QVC style presentation?
Thank you .

[Whickerman]

The BBC is a better than world-class institution - you shoudl be thankful for it.

As for the question at hand - here in Ireland we have the worst of both worlds, in that we have a licence fee for RTE and they advertise. A lot.
However, a govt think-tank has been working for a while here now, and recognising that they can't charge a licence for pcs/net tv, they are recommending that the fee be abolished, but only after they come up with an alternative method of funding for RTE. They haven't worked that bit out yet.

[Gromit]

Paid for Internet downloads are the future of Television. You will do your own programming or buy an evening package, and your computer will beam them to your television. The technology is alreay here. Many companies have introduced devices, Apple who make iPod introduced theres last week.

http://www.apple.com/uk/appletv/

and You read it here first THE COMPUTER TAX

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1508 650,00.html

Only us Brits would have the TV Licence - not so, read what the rst of Europe do here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licenc e

[JudgeJ]

The �Legal Loophole� mentioned in the Times article is not accepted by the TV Licencing Agency. Extracts from their website:

�You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.�

"'Television receiving equipment� can be a television set, a VCR, a set-top box, a TV-enabled personal computer or any other equipment designed or modified to enable it to receive television programmes."

I cannot see that such a loophole exists under the current legislation (The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004):

� "television receiver" means 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.�

This seems quite unambiguous to me and where the loophole exists is a bit baffling. I am of the opinion that the current legislation makes the case quite clearly for a licence requirement for computers which receive television broadcasts via the internet. I would certainly not give it a run for my money.