In the UK it is a rigidly enforced legal requirement to have an annual t.v. license to watch live transmissions. This includes watching live terrestrial t.v., live satellite t.v., and live streamed web t.v.

The cost is about £135 a year. Anyone failing to pay first of all receives numerous increasingly threatening letters from the TV Licensing Authority. Then they can be taken to court, fined thousands of pounds, and likely have their t.v. reception equipment confiscated. 

This high cost for what many millions around the world get for free, also affects students sharing college dorm. accommodation with multiple t.v.s, multiple-t.v.-owning families, hospitals, and thousands of stores selling t.v.s.

Now the latest legal requirement is for ALL smart phone owners to take out a t.v. license because they can be used to watch streamed-live t.v., e.g. the BBC News.

Recently there has been a widespread boycott of paying the license fee due to the proceeds being used to pay the salaries of numerous paedophiles at the BBC such as the late DJ Jimmy Saville. And that is to say nothing of the numerous cover-ups of (alleged) sexual abuse against minors over the years, and the salaries of those (allegedly) instigating the cover-ups.

But now the BBC has another anxiety about viewers not paying the license fee. This is due to its highly successful BBC iPlayer which allows viewers to watch or listen to BBC programmes after they have been aired. To view such catch-up programmes does not require a license. And now with a smart t.v.s the digital streams from BBC iPlayer can be viewed not only on computers but also on t.v.s.  

And so increasingly thousands of viewers are refusing to pay the license fee and are watching catch-up t.v. via iPlayer of their comouters, smart phones or smart t.v.s.

This is increasingly changing viewing habits as more and more choose not to pay the license fee and to only watch t.v. programmes in catch-up mode importantly WHEN they want to watch them.


--- On Wed, 10/4/13, David Breneman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: David Breneman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The beginning of the end of broadcast TV?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, 10 April, 2013, 17:50
> ††From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > 
> > Interesting! Apparently, the FCC can't mandate that
> networks own over-air 
> > facilities. This could kill the affiliate-owner
> business overnight, kind of like 
> > how the do not call law telemarketing as a legitimate
> business.
> This is an interesting development, but it's at odds with
> another one.
> There is a "cut the cable" movement going on as well, in
> which people
> drop their subscriptions to satellite and cable services in
> favor of
> installing antennas and getting their TV over the air.† Two
> forces are
> at play.† One is the high cost of cable (I have Comcast
> basic digital
> and it's close to $100 a month - *just* for cable TV ) and
> the other 
> is the proliferation of regular-definition co-channels on
> broadcast TV.
> These channels frequently carry content typically found on
> cable channels.
> Watching television narrowcasted on a wireless device is a
> pretty spectrum-
> wasteful way of getting the signal, and if you're watching
> on your
> internet connection at home you could just as easily be
> watching a program
> previously recorded on your DVR.†