CW
The fundamental difference there though is that Now TV is a private subscription service which is offered for sale on that basis, whereas the TV Licence is a mandatory licence which is required to use TV receiving equipment for live broadcasts, but when taken out does currently provide unlimited use of such equipment at a single address.
A move away from this would be politically awkward in terms of imposing a restriction on the number of devices a single licence covers which has never existed before making it seem much more of a 'BBC Subscription' than a 'TV Licence', and to enforce it they would also have to invest in what is essentially a subscriber management system to make this work when, again, the licence fee is not a subscription.
As also said above, sharing of details is going to become rife. One of arguably the biggest money spinners for TV Licencing at present is that rooms in HMOs/Student Accomodation let under separate contracts are all classed as separate licensable premises which require all the occupants to take out their own licence for their individual room and given a surprise visit which the landlord complies with it will be hard to get around this - but if you move to any kind of code system then an obvious workaround will be for one person in the building to have a licence which everyone chips in for and to share the codes - even if rumbled on a visit the licence holder can simply claim that they own all the devices in use in the building and so they are covered under their licence.
If TV Licencing then argues that the licence holder isn't personally using the device and/or ask for proof of ownership, it can be argued as unfair as nothing like this is required for users of conventional TV's so long as the premises is correctly licenced. Arguments about the equipment not being on the licenced premises would equally fall flat as otherwise that would mean mobile device couldn't be used. Trying to invoke the 'powered by it's own internal batteries' clause invented for pocket TV's in the 90's would similarly fail as that would mean someone charging a portable device at another premises would become uncovered too. It just goes on and on and on, they can't close this loophole and keep the TV Licence, there is always going to be a way of arguing out of a situation which can't be disproved.
It's not about trying to dismantle the BBC here, it's simply that I think the TV Licence simply doesn't work as a funding model any more and continually trying to firefight with loophole closures and repurposing it to fit in with the ever-changing ways people view TV (to say nothing of users of non-TV BBC services who continued to legally pay nothing for services paid for by TV viewers) will only lead to hypocrisy and inconsistency which in turn can only lead to it's abolition.
As I said above, I don't see a need for any convoluted scheme to fund the BBC - we do need a BBC, but just stick the cost of it into general taxation under a similar charter arrangement to that which exists now, it won't make them any more at the mercy of the government than they already are.
cwathen
Founding member
Aaron_2015 posted:
A possible solution to that problem would be a maximum of 5 devices allowed per PIN number, and only 3 people using the service with the same PIN at one time. I think Now TV use a similar system.
The fundamental difference there though is that Now TV is a private subscription service which is offered for sale on that basis, whereas the TV Licence is a mandatory licence which is required to use TV receiving equipment for live broadcasts, but when taken out does currently provide unlimited use of such equipment at a single address.
A move away from this would be politically awkward in terms of imposing a restriction on the number of devices a single licence covers which has never existed before making it seem much more of a 'BBC Subscription' than a 'TV Licence', and to enforce it they would also have to invest in what is essentially a subscriber management system to make this work when, again, the licence fee is not a subscription.
As also said above, sharing of details is going to become rife. One of arguably the biggest money spinners for TV Licencing at present is that rooms in HMOs/Student Accomodation let under separate contracts are all classed as separate licensable premises which require all the occupants to take out their own licence for their individual room and given a surprise visit which the landlord complies with it will be hard to get around this - but if you move to any kind of code system then an obvious workaround will be for one person in the building to have a licence which everyone chips in for and to share the codes - even if rumbled on a visit the licence holder can simply claim that they own all the devices in use in the building and so they are covered under their licence.
If TV Licencing then argues that the licence holder isn't personally using the device and/or ask for proof of ownership, it can be argued as unfair as nothing like this is required for users of conventional TV's so long as the premises is correctly licenced. Arguments about the equipment not being on the licenced premises would equally fall flat as otherwise that would mean mobile device couldn't be used. Trying to invoke the 'powered by it's own internal batteries' clause invented for pocket TV's in the 90's would similarly fail as that would mean someone charging a portable device at another premises would become uncovered too. It just goes on and on and on, they can't close this loophole and keep the TV Licence, there is always going to be a way of arguing out of a situation which can't be disproved.
It's not about trying to dismantle the BBC here, it's simply that I think the TV Licence simply doesn't work as a funding model any more and continually trying to firefight with loophole closures and repurposing it to fit in with the ever-changing ways people view TV (to say nothing of users of non-TV BBC services who continued to legally pay nothing for services paid for by TV viewers) will only lead to hypocrisy and inconsistency which in turn can only lead to it's abolition.
As I said above, I don't see a need for any convoluted scheme to fund the BBC - we do need a BBC, but just stick the cost of it into general taxation under a similar charter arrangement to that which exists now, it won't make them any more at the mercy of the government than they already are.
Last edited by cwathen on 12 May 2016 10:15pm