United Kingdom

6983 readers

567 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

BBC to force more to pay licence fee with ‘YouTube tax’ (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 3 days ago by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC. Under the proposed changes it would be expanded to cover all other online providers, such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, YouTube, which are currently exempt.

The Whitehall source explained that the move was “because people are able to use them to avoid paying currently”. They added: “It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”

Why would the BBC be allowed to collect money on services it does not provide? This is basically saying "everyone must pay this fee, or unplug their internet".

At that point, you might as well just take it from the government budget.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] blimthepixie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Remember the scare stories of the TV licence vans

[–] towerful@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Except they did actually exist and did actually work.
https://youtu.be/U8mSHKsyWDw

Well, for analog CRTs

[–] SpatchyIsOnline@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, all the info in that video is super sketchy, the em interference signal it refers to would be detectable within a few inches at most with today's technology

[–] Fluke@feddit.uk 0 points 3 days ago

Uh huh.

Mate, I can hear the squealing whine of a flyback transformer through brick walls with my own ears. I DO NOT miss the days when everyone had two or three of the fucking things screaming away all day.

Detecting the magnetic flux those things produce isn't magic, tricky, or a cover-up. It just requires a sensitive antenna array tuned to the right frequency.

Now, since the shift to flat panel displays a TV doesn't announce it's presence in such an obvious fashion. This makes detecting a TV a much more difficult prospect, arguably not impossible, but not likely within their budget nowadays.

[–] blimthepixie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

Hmmm nah, they have a database of everyone with a licence plus the guy even said they can see the light of the TV through the windows.

Still think it's scaremongering