Never Had a TV. Am I Missing Out? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Remmirath

2012-09-25, 02:45 PM

I would say no. I've lived in a place with a television set in it my whole life, but I have never really used it to watch television. On the few occasions I have switched it on to see what was showing, there was nothing of interest.

I suppose if you haven't watched any movies or possibly some shows on tape, then perhaps you have (the only reason I like having a television set around is so I can see those things every now and again); but really it's all a question of rather you would've wanted to see what was on television if you could've. If you wouldn't anyhow, than you obviously haven't missed out on anything, but if you think that you would like to watch television but haven't then you may have (or you may have an over-optimistic notion that there are intersting things on).

Bulldog Psion

2012-09-25, 02:47 PM

Definitely no.

Aedilred

2012-09-25, 03:20 PM

I think you're missing out on less now than you would be at any other time since television became commonplace. Now, the ready and near-instant proliferation of shows across the internet means that the shared community experience that the old TV timetable used to bring is really a thing of the past, so those without TVs are no longer really missing out. Only really with sporting or major world news events does it really still occur, but in those cases television is just the medium by which you experience them, not the event in itself. The days when the UK used to grind to a halt to watch Python or Forsyte or whatever are long gone.

However, there is something comforting about the inflexibility of the TV schedule, and I find I now miss a lot simply because it doesn't seem important. I can always watch it later, but I never do. Not just pap, either, but good comedy or drama that I would really enjoy. You're also deprived of that "great thing I just caught on TV" moment (which, admittedly might happen more rarely than I'd like (it happens more with films than anything else, I think)) but does still happen occasionally. Unable to discover new TV for yourself by chance, you're reliant on other people to find it for you. That does put in place a rudimentary quality filter, but things will pass you by altogether if you're not careful.

I know nothing about TV anywhere outside Britain, but I find if I'm bored or have something mindless to do with my hands like ironing or polishing shoes/silver etc., I can usually flick over to BBC4 (or equivalent channel) and find something worth watching, and it's usually something I'd never bother to download or recommend.

Presumably the lack of a TV also has an effect on your ability to watch DVDs, etc. I bemoan the current trend among my peers which has ten of us in someone's living room watching a feature film on a netbook because they're too stingy to get a TV licence. There are ways round this, though.

Maxios

2012-09-25, 03:27 PM

In this day and age where just about any and every episode of any and every show can be found online, no. Not at all.

Yeah uh, no :smalltongue:
Unless you mean illegally, of course.

nedz

2012-09-25, 04:05 PM

Yeah uh, no :smalltongue:
Unless you mean illegally, of course.

Well it depends where you live.

I didn't have one for 5 years.

If you acquire a news addiction, or some major stuff happens, then they are good. But these days - I'm not so sure that you need one.

I recently upgraded my 14" set for a 40" set which is an excellent monitor for watching DVDs and stuff off the internet, as well as some broadcast programs. Modern TVs are on the internet too.
It is a different experience than using a PC, and I can use my PC at the same time.

Surfing HalfOrc

2012-09-25, 04:17 PM

Not really, and this is from a guy who used to be addicted to TV!

In High School, I would get home, put on Gilligan's Island, then Star Trek, then do my homework during the evening news. Then TV until I went to bed.

Joined the Navy, didn't smoke. Back then (mid Eighties) the Navy allowed smoking in the Crews Lounge, and too many people saw it as a duty to suck down as many cigs as humanly possible. So I started going to the movie theater.

Now days I just ask what's good to watch, and look for them at my leisure. I like The Big Bang Theory, can't stand any "Reality" TV, and try to catch a few football games when I get a chance (American Football. European Football is a Commie Plot).:smallamused:

Thajocoth

2012-09-25, 04:39 PM

Personally, I don't think there's enough that's any good on TV to be worth it. My TV at home is pretty much only used for video games. I got TV with my internet because it was marginally cheaper. It's hooked up, but not used.

Karoht

2012-09-25, 05:45 PM

I have never lived in an establishment with a TV in my life. Ever. Of course, I have occasionally watched things on TV, but I have never owned one or lived with one.

Am I horribly deprived?
I get all my viewing content via the internet, and it goes to my computer an monitor.
Do I count as watching 'TV' if I'm watching a series like House or Community in such a manner?

I do own a TV, but it's to facilitate the odd times I go and goof off with console gaming.

Owning a TV or not is largely meaningless these days. Go back to your childhood though? Yeah, that might be a little strange. Mostly because you might not get all the jokes from references to such common and quotable media as the Simpsons, Family Guy, Animaniacs, etc.

Worlok

2012-09-25, 06:51 PM

Not necessarily. It depends on what you'd expect it to do for you, but on the whole, one can easily do without. I, for one, threw mine out a good while ago, and I did not regret it since.

Of course, the occasional movie or show is worth checking out, but there are other ways. Same goes for news, and frankly, television as a whole can be a rather big, bad joke or habit even where it is watchable in more than just the most technical sense of the term - which is quite rare in of itself, from what I know.

So, really, I'd tend towards a "no". But it's basically just another way of spending time, so whether or not you missed out is anyone's guess. Most notably, your own. :smallbiggrin:

willpell

2012-09-25, 06:54 PM

I quit TV about eight years ago and have never regretted it. Between YouTube and the occasional carefully-chosen DVD, you shouldn't have to put up with more than a few seconds of advertising per hour of worthy entertainment.

MoonCat

2012-09-25, 07:09 PM

My parents stopped having the TV in the house when I was six, mainly because no one had watched it in two years. I'd say neither of us has missed anything, although I do use Netflix and they like in order to watch the things I am interested in.

Kindablue

2012-09-25, 07:14 PM

You missed David Lynch being weird. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qob3FTPJ7cM)

Ulysses WkAmil

2012-09-25, 07:15 PM

It's good for being sick, as you have automatic entertainment. Other than that, they're just addicting boxes of pictures. Wait until video-pandora comes out. Make TVs obsolete.

Coidzor

2012-09-25, 07:18 PM

On some pop cultural references? Yes. Probably a fair few.

In general, probably not, though I'd recommend catching some of the better programming that's available online, even if it's just in the form of highlights.

comicshorse

2012-09-25, 07:25 PM

Ironically enough due to the digital changeover here in England my TV stopped working at midnight, about an hour ago now ( before anybody points it out I don't have an aerial on the roof and have been watching using a portable aerial in the past which won't pick up digital).
I had assumed I'd have to do something but am know considering if I want to. I love TV series but I can get on DVD, intersting new stuff can be watched on computer from 4OD or BBC IPlayer. Given that do I want to bother upgrading my TV and keep paying for a TV licence ?
I'm still mulling but I'm pretty sure I'm about to give up my TV

Aragehaor

2012-09-25, 07:55 PM

On the other hand, lacking a television set means you have in fact missed out on quite a few excellent video games exclusive to the consoles, though that would only matter if you enjoyed video games.

Aside from that, i wouldn't say your really missing out on anything - i mean you missed some excellent shows certainly - but you are fully capable of watching most, if not all of those shows online so the only thing you really missed out on was making childhood nostalgic memories of shows which you decide to rewatch when your older only to realize your childhood self was very easily entertained. :smalltongue:

Chainsaw Hobbit

2012-09-25, 08:01 PM

Aragehaor

2012-09-25, 08:09 PM

Can I hook a console up to my projector?

Depends on the kind - how new it is and such - but so long as it has Audio-Video slots* to plug your console into it should work.

Though admittedly i have only very limited experience with using projectors in this way.

One more thing to keep in mind is that your projector may not be capable of displaying video games properly if it is of low quality, it would be helpful if you listed what model your projector is.

*I could be completely wrong about this due to only really half-remembering how projectors generally work.

Rawhide

2012-09-25, 09:51 PM

Almost all projectors will have the required ports, but surprisingly, almost all consumer projectors are also rather low resolution.

You can use the standard composite video port (yellow), but that's a rather low quality way of doing it. It may not matter to you or your needs, however.

Your best bet is to try to use a HDMI capable console with a HDMI capable projector. While you might consider the HDMI quality overkill for what a consumer projector can output, it's the only standard likely to be on it other than the definitely inferior composite.

NOTE: Some DVI connectors can do HDMI with an adaptor.

---

The next issue is how the console tends to output a lot of static, unchanging, elements and entire screens, which may not play well with your projector over a long period of time.

dps

2012-09-25, 10:05 PM

It's kind of like asking if you've missed out on anything if you've never read fiction. You've missed a lot of crap, but then again you've missed some good stuff as well.

thubby

2012-09-25, 10:10 PM

an absolutely ridiculous number of computer monitors are compatible with consoles, even more if you're willing to pay a little for adapters.

not only do you get to play your games, monitors usually sport higher refresh rates

It's kind of like asking if you've missed out on anything if you've never read fiction. You've missed a lot of crap, but then again you've missed some good stuff as well.

i disagree. all good television (and most of the rest) can be found online or purchased.
i would more compare it to having never read a newspaper. the content exists elsewhere, even in the same format.

Chainsaw Hobbit

2012-09-25, 10:36 PM

Let me clarify. I have watched a few TV shows, but not nearly as many as other people. Most of the visual media I take in is movies. I don't really keep up with any shoes, and most of the ones I like are old.

There are also probably a lot of TV shows I have never heard of. Many of the ones other people talk about are unfamiliar to me. Am I missing out on much?

Kelb_Panthera

2012-09-26, 12:47 AM

Unless you're a sports fan, probably not much. And that's coming from someone that spends several hours a day in front of one.

When the wife and I moved into our new place six months ago, we decided to just skip getting cable and only pay for internet and netflix. I do miss watching UFC unleashed though.

If you don't mind looking things up on the internet a while after it's already aired you're not missing anything at all except advert's. Though missing ad's means you probably don't know about the latest movies unless someone brings it up in conversation.

Jimorian

2012-09-26, 01:52 AM

There are only 2 television programs that I consider as required viewing by every human on the planet.

James Burke's series of "Connections", "The Day the Universe Changed", and "Connections 2".

Michael Palin's various series of travelogues. "Around the World in 80 Days", "Pole to Pole", and "Full Circle" primarily, but he's done a few others as well.

Aedilred

2012-09-26, 04:13 AM

Since this thread seems to appear twice, I'll copy over what I put in the other thread:

I think you're missing out on less now than you would be at any other time since television became commonplace. Now, the ready and near-instant proliferation of shows across the internet means that the shared community experience that the old TV timetable used to bring is really a thing of the past, so those without TVs are no longer really missing out. Only really with sporting or major world news events does it really still occur, but in those cases television is just the medium by which you experience them, not the event in itself. The days when the UK used to grind to a halt to watch Python or Forsyte or whatever are long gone.

However, there is something comforting about the inflexibility of the TV schedule, and I find I now miss a lot simply because it doesn't seem important. I can always watch it later, but I never do. Not just pap, either, but good comedy or drama that I would really enjoy. You're also deprived of that "great thing I just caught on TV" moment (which, admittedly might happen more rarely than I'd like (it happens more with films than anything else, I think)) but does still happen occasionally. Unable to discover new TV for yourself by chance, you're reliant on other people to find it for you. That does put in place a rudimentary quality filter, but things will pass you by altogether if you're not careful.

I know nothing about TV anywhere outside Britain, but I find if I'm bored or have something mindless to do with my hands like ironing or polishing shoes/silver etc., I can usually flick over to BBC4 (or equivalent channel) and find something worth watching, and it's usually something I'd never bother to download or recommend.

Presumably the lack of a TV also has an effect on your ability to watch DVDs, etc. I bemoan the current trend among my peers which has ten of us in someone's living room watching a feature film on a netbook because they're too stingy to get a TV licence. There are ways round this, though.

tl;dr: yes and no. You can get hold of almost anything that's been on TV by other means, but the likelihood of your doing so is significantly smaller if you don't have your own. Also, you're reliant on other people to direct your watching habits.

I quit TV about eight years ago and have never regretted it. Between YouTube and the occasional carefully-chosen DVD, you shouldn't have to put up with more than a few seconds of advertising per hour of worthy entertainment.
Ah, the wonders of the BBC.

I actually find YouTube more advert-ridden proportionally to content than television these days.

factotum

2012-09-26, 06:25 AM

If you've never had a TV then you're missing out by definition, because you can't watch TV. If the question is "am I missing out on something *worthwhile*?", then the answer is "Possibly". It depends entirely on what you consider to be worthwhile--some people think sitting on the sofa watching sport is a worthwhile use of their time, for instance, and I'm certainly not going to tell them they're wrong. I wouldn't accept being told by someone else that watching every episode of Babylon 5 wasn't worthwhile (except possibly "Grey 17 is Missing", which was awful :smallsmile:).

Kobold-Bard

2012-09-26, 06:27 AM

...

Presumably the lack of a TV also has an effect on your ability to watch DVDs, etc. I bemoan the current trend among my peers which has ten of us in someone's living room watching a feature film on a netbook because they're too stingy to get a TV licence. There are ways round this, though.

You don't need a tv license to watch DVDs on a tv, as long as its not actually connected to an aerial. Obviously you'll get endless generic letters telling you you're breaking the law, but if it's not plugged in them they know that and won't do more than try to trick you with letters.

Brother Oni

2012-09-26, 06:29 AM

I had assumed I'd have to do something but am know considering if I want to. I love TV series but I can get on DVD, intersting new stuff can be watched on computer from 4OD or BBC IPlayer. Given that do I want to bother upgrading my TV and keep paying for a TV licence ?

A word of warning, you won't have to upgrade your TV, but depending on your viewing habits, you may still have to pay for a TV license.

There's more information on the TV Licensing webpage (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12/).

Rawhide

2012-09-26, 07:14 AM

OMGWTFBBQHAMBURGER, you have to pay a TV license to watch standard TV?

comicshorse

2012-09-26, 07:44 AM

A word of warning, you won't have to upgrade your TV, but depending on your viewing habits, you may still have to pay for a TV license.

There's more information on the TV Licensing webpage (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12/).

Thanks :smallsmile:

Aedilred

2012-09-26, 10:48 AM

OMGWTFBBQHAMBURGER, you have to pay a TV license to watch standard TV?
Yes. Or, rather, to watch live TV - they gave up trying to enforce it on iPlayer. It's not expensive (about £14/month) and that covers all the public-broadcast channels, many/most(?) of which are advert-free.

You don't need a tv license to watch DVDs on a tv, as long as its not actually connected to an aerial. Obviously you'll get endless generic letters telling you you're breaking the law, but if it's not plugged in them they know that and won't do more than try to trick you with letters.
Yeah, I know, but for most people they don't make the distinction, and if they're not going to watch TV (because they don't want to pay for the licence) they don't get one. Hence the netbooks.

Personally, I just have a TV and pay the licence fee.

nedz

2012-09-26, 11:36 AM

I remember watching an episode of the X-Files over in the states once, with adverts it lasted one hour thirty. On the BBC 45 minutes.
The license fee is quite a bargain.

Rawhide

2012-09-26, 11:41 AM

Yes. Or, rather, to watch live TV - they gave up trying to enforce it on iPlayer. It's not expensive (about £14/month) and that covers all the public-broadcast channels, many/most(?) of which are advert-free.

Cheap? That's far from my definition of cheap for being able to receive "free to air" stations. I honestly wouldn't pay that amount just to be able to watch live tv.

ABC1, ABC2, ABC3, ABC News 24, SBS1, and SBS2 are all commercial free, the others (more than double what I listed there) generally have adverts.

You can pay for even more channels, if you so desire, via cable or satellite. For double that price per month, you can add 40 channels (not including the timeshift duplicates), with optional further addons.

I remember watching an episode of the X-Files over in the states once, with adverts it lasted one hour thirty. On the BBC 45 minutes.
The license fee is quite a bargain.

1 hour with adverts, at least here.

thubby

2012-09-26, 11:42 AM

I remember watching an episode of the X-Files over in the states once, with adverts it lasted one hour thirty. On the BBC 45 minutes.
The license fee is quite a bargain.

that's pretty typical world-wide. most shows are 24 minutes long with roughly 6 minutes commercials.

Kobold-Bard

2012-09-26, 11:42 AM

Yes. Or, rather, to watch live TV - they gave up trying to enforce it on iPlayer. It's not expensive (about £14/month) and that covers all the public-broadcast channels, many/most(?) of which are advert-free.

...

Advert-free BBC radio is why I'm glad of the tv license system. Not having to listen to cheesy ads (especially where after they're over they spend a full minute reading out the small print that would normally be shown on screen) is fantastic.

Rawhide

2012-09-26, 11:43 AM

Advert-free BBC radio is why I'm glad of the tv license system. Not having to listen to cheesy ads (especially where after they're over they spend a full minute reading out the small print that would normally be shown on screen) is fantastic.

We don't have a license system, and yet all ABC and SBS stations (tv and radio) are advert free.

that's pretty typical world-wide. most shows are 24 minutes long with roughly 6 minutes commercials.

Actually, it's atypical. It should be 1 hour long, not 1 hour and 30 minutes.

Kobold-Bard

2012-09-26, 11:56 AM

We don't have a license system, and yet all ABC and SBS stations (tv and radio) are advert free.

...

Lucky you.

How are they funded?

Rawhide

2012-09-26, 12:01 PM

Lucky you.

How are they funded?

Government funded (so, yes, we do essentially pay for those stations in other ways). Plus they sell stuff (slight lie, ABC does advertise the stuff they sell, but only between shows, not during them).

Sipex

2012-09-26, 12:07 PM

You probably have missed out on some things, like having a solid medium that allows you an easy route to relate to and fit in with most people, especially as a child when it's harder to fit in and you tend to care more about it.

There are also plenty of television programs which you may not have 'missed out' per say, as they're still accessible, and are probably worth a look depending on your interests. I know television, especially more recent television, can be quite compelling. However, you don't need an actual TV or cable to enjoy these shows anymore, although having a television, at the very least, gives a (typically) larger medium for viewing. Televisions would also be ideal for group viewing and tend to be more comfortable to sit in front of when you...say...buy a season of a favourite show and watch the episodes in a marathon.

Brother Oni

2012-09-26, 01:19 PM

Government funded (so, yes, we do essentially pay for those stations in other ways). Plus they sell stuff (slight lie, ABC does advertise the stuff they sell, but only between shows, not during them).

Well the TV License is essentially how the the BBC is funded (other channels also get a cut of the money) but because they're semi autonomous of the government, it means they have some independence on how/what they report on.

The BBC doesn't just maintain its TV channels and shows with the money, it also maintains its radio stations, some of which (the World Service for example) are very worthy endeavours.

Tyndmyr

2012-09-26, 01:41 PM

Not really. Most shows are filler. People with a TV front and center often find themselves watching pretty mediocre drek because "it's all thats on".

Those of us who ignore our TVs(I have one, technically. I haven't plugged it in in 10 months) go out and actually do stuff. Im a fan of the latter.

Mando Knight

2012-09-26, 01:59 PM

OMGWTFBBQHAMBURGER, you have to pay a TV license to watch standard TV?

Yes. Or, rather, to watch live TV - they gave up trying to enforce it on iPlayer. It's not expensive (about £14/month) and that covers all the public-broadcast channels, many/most(?) of which are advert-free.

Yeah, I know, but for most people they don't make the distinction, and if they're not going to watch TV (because they don't want to pay for the licence) they don't get one. Hence the netbooks.

Personally, I just have a TV and pay the licence fee.
My question was how the hell do they enforce it?! The Wikipedia article gives some examples, though.

ABC1, ABC2, ABC3, ABC News 24, SBS1, and SBS2 are all commercial free, the others (more than double what I listed there) generally have adverts.
Took me a while to realize that the "A" here meant "Australian," as the US has its own ABC (in which the "A" means "American" instead, obviously).

nedz

2012-09-26, 02:51 PM

Government funded (so, yes, we do essentially pay for those stations in other ways).

So we have a hypothocated poll tax, and you use general taxation.

Plus they sell stuff (slight lie, ABC does advertise the stuff they sell, but only between shows, not during them).

Well, the BBC does do that for its own shows:trailers spoilers.

Actually, it's atypical. It should be 1 hour long, not 1 hour and 30 minutes.

It was quite annoying: several minutes of ads, 1 minute of program, 2 minutes of ads, 5 minutes of program, 2 minutes of ads, ...
Colorado - Breckenridge, so up in the mountains.

The BBC doesn't just maintain its TV channels and shows with the money, it also maintains its radio stations, some of which (the World Service for example) are very worthy endeavours.
The world service is centrally funded, by the FCO IIRC.

Asta Kask

2012-09-26, 03:55 PM

My question was how the hell do they enforce it?! The Wikipedia article gives some examples, though.

They lie in their commcercials saying they can detect if a TV is on in your apartment, then scare the **** out of you. At least that how they do it in Sweden.

Aedilred

2012-09-26, 04:01 PM

Cheap? That's far from my definition of cheap for being able to receive "free to air" stations. I honestly wouldn't pay that amount just to be able to watch live tv.

ABC1, ABC2, ABC3, ABC News 24, SBS1, and SBS2 are all commercial free, the others (more than double what I listed there) generally have adverts.

You can pay for even more channels, if you so desire, via cable or satellite. For double that price per month, you can add 40 channels (not including the timeshift duplicates), with optional further addons.
Now that we've gone digital, with a freeview box you can get around 50 channels (of varying type and quality) and all you have to pay is the licence fee, although not all of them receive fee money.

For what it's worth, I do think the BBC offers excellent value for money. Since it's "publicly" funded but still essentially indepedent from the government, it can produce high-quality programming that wouldn't make it through the commercial commissioning process, including almost all the best television comedy that comes out of the UK (Channel 4 has a bit). There are paid subscription channels that really only show BBC repeats.

I'd add that the TV is the cheapest "utility" in the house. I pay more for the phone line I don't use, and if I actually used it I'd have to pay even more.

factotum

2012-09-26, 04:23 PM

Government funded (so, yes, we do essentially pay for those stations in other ways). Plus they sell stuff (slight lie, ABC does advertise the stuff they sell, but only between shows, not during them).

So, what you're basically saying is that you prefer a system where you don't know how much of your money is going to the TV channels and where they'll show advertising anyway, over one where the money is explicitly ring-fenced for the BBC and it shows no adverts whatsoever? :smallconfused:

Chainsaw Hobbit

2012-09-26, 04:54 PM

This sounds horribly complicated and expensive.

Rawhide

2012-09-26, 06:45 PM

Well the TV License is essentially how the the BBC is funded (other channels also get a cut of the money) but because they're semi autonomous of the government, it means they have some independence on how/what they report on.

The BBC doesn't just maintain its TV channels and shows with the money, it also maintains its radio stations, some of which (the World Service for example) are very worthy endeavours.

The ABC and SBS networks are entirely independent of the government, in all respects other than funding. It's even legislated.

They maintain several channels each, quite a few radio stations each, websites including news, online catch up services, etc. etc.

They, and the ABC in particular, are regarded as highly reliable and arguably our least biased news sources (no news source will ever be completely unbiased).

So, what you're basically saying is that you prefer a system where you don't know how much of your money is going to the TV channels and where they'll show advertising anyway, over one where the money is explicitly ring-fenced for the BBC and it shows no adverts whatsoever? :smallconfused:

The amount of money being given to the ABC and the SBS is published publically. We know exactly how much is going to it.

ABC and SBS show absolutly no advertisments whatsoever during shows. There are some advertisments that take up very little time between shows as filler. These advertisments are purely which shows are coming up next/soon and (very mild, softly spoken) advertisments for products from things such as a show you've just watched or one on soon/now/recently. These are all shows the ABC has produced themselves (or one they have licensed from a place such as the BBC). ABC in particular produces a lot of original content (while SBS focuses on having lots of international, often subtitled, content). (What I am saying here is that ABC and SBS has essentially no advertising, and none at all during shows, and what they do have is unobtrusive - basically the same as BBC's advertising.)

Aditionally, while this applies mostly to the commercial channels, the amount of adverts you can have is also legislated. If you tried to stretch a 45 minute show longer than an hour here, for example, you'd be breaking the law (but the timing is much more granular).

Coidzor

2012-09-26, 07:06 PM

Presumably the lack of a TV also has an effect on your ability to watch DVDs, etc. I bemoan the current trend among my peers which has ten of us in someone's living room watching a feature film on a netbook because they're too stingy to get a TV licence. There are ways round this, though.

TV.... licence? :smallconfused: Is that to own one or what?

Kobold-Bard

2012-09-26, 07:12 PM

TV.... licence? :smallconfused: Is that to own one or what?

Every household in Britain using a tv set to actually watch television is required to pay for a TV License (£145.50/year), which pays for the BBC, which doesn't advertise or receive any sort of commercial funding. It's mandatory since all tvs get the BBC and "well I don't watch them ever" is not an acceptable excuse.

You can own as many tvs as you like, and you don't need to pay the license if you just use it as a monitor for DVD/games console/etc., but if you watch actual tv then you need to pay it.

See Television licensing in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom).

nedz

2012-09-26, 07:35 PM

They lie in their commercials saying they can detect if a TV is on in your apartment, then scare the **** out of you. At least that how they do it in Sweden.
Yeah - we used to have those ads. I haven't seen one in a while though.
Originally they would capture the information from sales, now they have a database.

Incidentally the secret high tech detection equipment used in the vans is a guy who jumps out and peeks through your window.:smallbiggrin:

TV.... licence? :smallconfused: Is that to own one or what?
Its quite common, most of Europe uses this system. Only the UK still offers monochrome licences though.:smallbiggrin:
It grew out of radio licences, which started in the '30s.
The thinking behind that should be obvious.

Every household in Britain using a tv set to actually watch television is required to pay for a TV License (£145.50/year), which pays for the BBC, which doesn't advertise or receive any sort of commercial funding. It's mandatory since all tvs get the BBC and "well I don't watch them ever" is not an acceptable excuse.

Or £49 if you only have a black and white set :smallbiggrin:
I don't think that they sell too many of these though.

noparlpf

2012-09-26, 08:03 PM

Every household in Britain using a tv set to actually watch television is required to pay for a TV License (£145.50/year), which pays for the BBC, which doesn't advertise or receive any sort of commercial funding. It's mandatory since all tvs get the BBC and "well I don't watch them ever" is not an acceptable excuse.

You can own as many tvs as you like, and you don't need to pay the license if you just use it as a monitor for DVD/games console/etc., but if you watch actual tv then you need to pay it.

See Television licensing in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom).

What if you have a TV but don't have it hooked up to anything (no antennae, no cable, &c.) except a VHS player, DVD player and game consoles?

factotum

2012-09-27, 01:44 AM

What if you have a TV but don't have it hooked up to anything (no antennae, no cable, &c.) except a VHS player, DVD player and game consoles?

Then you don't need a license, so long as the VHS player isn't attached to a TV aerial. If it *is* then you need one, because you have the capability to record live TV and watch it later on.

There was actually a bit of a glitch around that when video recorders started coming out--a lot of people still owned black and white TVs in those days, but if they bought a video recorder to use with it they were required to get a colour TV license because the recorder was capable of receiving colour TV even though the attached TV wasn't!

@Rawhide: So how much is spent on these TV channels? If you were to take that expenditure and divide it by the number of TV-watching households (*not* population, note) in Australia, how much would each one be paying per annum?

Brother Oni

2012-09-27, 02:10 AM

My question was how the hell do they enforce it?! The Wikipedia article gives some examples, though.

It's fairly simple - they have a database of all households in the UK and a simple flag system for those who have paid and those who haven't.

If someone hasn't paid, they can send people round on surprise inspections (although you can refuse them entry, at which point they can go get a warrant), but they also have detector vans.

Rawhide

2012-09-27, 04:05 AM

@Rawhide: So how much is spent on these TV channels? If you were to take that expenditure and divide it by the number of TV-watching households (*not* population, note) in Australia, how much would each one be paying per annum?

Off the top of my head, I wouldn't know, and I don't really have the time to calculate that all out right now.

However, this is something I would like to note. When you make people have to pay for a service, it's the poor people who miss out. I would rather have a service like this available to everyone (even if they don't use it), than only available to those willing to pay, for reasons I won't discuss on the forums. I am happy for the cost of this particular service to be spread out to even those that don't use it (many of whom will use it in an emergency situation).

Tvtyrant

2012-09-27, 04:14 AM

The best solution IMO is to buy a TV and hook a computer to it as a screen for watching movies with friends. Then you can watch shows on it and pretend it has cable or the like.

Sipex

2012-09-27, 12:11 PM

It's fairly simple - they have a database of all households in the UK and a simple flag system for those who have paid and those who haven't.

If someone hasn't paid, they can send people round on surprise inspections (although you can refuse them entry, at which point they can go get a warrant), but they also have detector vans.

I was really curious because 'detector vans' and 'commercials scaring viewers', it sounded very suspicious to say the least, so I looked into it and found some interesting links.

BBC announces a new line of detector vans, conspiracy theorists re-apply their tinfoil hats. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/06_june/24/licensing_detector_vans.shtml)

An explanation on how detector vans actually work which actually sounds plausible. (http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/How-it-Works/article/what-signals-do-tv-detector-vans-pick-up/)

Tyndmyr

2012-09-27, 01:57 PM

They lie in their commcercials saying they can detect if a TV is on in your apartment, then scare the **** out of you. At least that how they do it in Sweden.

What? That seems ridiculous.

That said, cable packages in general seem weird. The idea that I can't pick channels ala carte just seems odd...or hell, individual shows, for that matter. So, I alternate between having cable(when sold cheaply on special with my internet service) and not. It's not really a big deal. Online availability is great anyway, and hell, shows also tend to come out on DVD. If I want to see a show, the cable service isn't usually the fastest option to get it, even!

noparlpf

2012-09-27, 02:07 PM

I was really curious because 'detector vans' and 'commercials scaring viewers', it sounded very suspicious to say the least, so I looked into it and found some interesting links.

BBC announces a new line of detector vans, conspiracy theorists re-apply their tinfoil hats. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/06_june/24/licensing_detector_vans.shtml)

An explanation on how detector vans actually work which actually sounds plausible. (http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/How-it-Works/article/what-signals-do-tv-detector-vans-pick-up/)

Is it cheaper to live underground and line my bunkerhouse with lead, or to pay for a TV subscription?

What? That seems ridiculous.

That said, cable packages in general seem weird. The idea that I can't pick channels ala carte just seems odd...or hell, individual shows, for that matter. So, I alternate between having cable(when sold cheaply on special with my internet service) and not. It's not really a big deal. Online availability is great anyway, and hell, shows also tend to come out on DVD. If I want to see a show, the cable service isn't usually the fastest option to get it, even!

Yeah, I probably won't pay for cable when I move out because I watch so few shows, and I can find most of them online.

Aedilred

2012-09-27, 04:49 PM

Is it cheaper to live underground and line my bunkerhouse with lead, or to pay for a TV subscription?
Well, according to my very rough calculations, if you started paying a TV licence at the current rate (~£140 p.a.) at the age of 16 and lived until the age of 90, with the licence fee increasing by 4% each year in accordance with an average-ish rate of inflation, the total cost would be around £65,000 over the course of your life.

Now, assuming you live in a fairly average 2-storey house with a floor area of roughly 1,000 feet (largeish for a UK new-build, small for an existing house) and to assist with the maths let's say you have a flat roof. So we're looking at roughly 2,500 square feet of house to cover with lead.

The cheapest way to do this would be to paint it with lead paint, but, let's face it, you want to do this properly. There's no point being only a little crazy, and how many rays are a thin coat of paint really going to keep out? Let's use Code 3 roofing lead (1.32mm) for reasonable security. That goes for £14 for about a 5-foot sheet, and let's say for the sake of argument you don't get a bulk discount even if you order 500: that comes to (assuming my maths isn't totally off) a grand total of £7000.

So by that calculation it would cost you ten times less to cover your house with lead. Of course, there are complications. All that lead would likely shorten your lifespan, which diminishes your earning potential. If you die even three years before retirement (~65 now, but likely to be higher by 2076) and earn the current UK average wage of £~19000 that's going to wipe out your entire saving. It's also going to devalue your property which will affect the amount you can borrow against it to pay for all the rest of your crazy.

Probably also worth noting that the inflation on TV licences is nowhere near 4% pa (although some commentators have suggested it should follow the rate of inflation).

So make of that what you will.

horngeek

2012-09-27, 05:05 PM

ABC and SBS show absolutly no advertisments whatsoever during shows.

For SBS, this isn't true anymore. That said, SBS has far less ads during programs than the commercial channels.

Off the top of my head, I wouldn't know, and I don't really have the time to calculate that all out right now.

However, this is something I would like to note. When you make people have to pay for a service, it's the poor people who miss out. I would rather have a service like this available to everyone (even if they don't use it), than only available to those willing to pay, for reasons I won't discuss on the forums. I am happy for the cost of this particular service to be spread out to even those that don't use it (many of whom will use it in an emergency situation).

Oh, yes, this.

That said, to answer the OP question- you're not really missing out. You can get most shows on the internet legally, and you can watch DVDs on your computer. So, yeah, not missing out that much.

Now, granted, I never really watched much TV myself- I always tended (and still tend) towards reading a book, or going on the computer for computer gaming (or, more recently, forums :smallbiggrin:). Even nowadays, I only watch one show on a regular basis, and that's Mythbusters.

Brother Oni

2012-09-27, 05:13 PM

Aedilred

2012-09-27, 05:58 PM

That is a very good point.

noparlpf

2012-09-27, 06:07 PM

Well, according to my very rough calculations, if you started paying a TV licence at the current rate (~£140 p.a.) at the age of 16 and lived until the age of 90, with the licence fee increasing by 4% each year in accordance with an average-ish rate of inflation, the total cost would be around £65,000 over the course of your life.

Now, assuming you live in a fairly average 2-storey house with a floor area of roughly 1,000 feet (largeish for a UK new-build, small for an existing house) and to assist with the maths let's say you have a flat roof. So we're looking at roughly 2,500 square feet of house to cover with lead.

The cheapest way to do this would be to paint it with lead paint, but, let's face it, you want to do this properly. There's no point being only a little crazy, and how many rays are a thin coat of paint really going to keep out? Let's use Code 3 roofing lead (1.32mm) for reasonable security. That goes for £14 for about a 5-foot sheet, and let's say for the sake of argument you don't get a bulk discount even if you order 500: that comes to (assuming my maths isn't totally off) a grand total of £7000.

So by that calculation it would cost you ten times less to cover your house with lead. Of course, there are complications. All that lead would likely shorten your lifespan, which diminishes your earning potential. If you die even three years before retirement (~65 now, but likely to be higher by 2076) and earn the current UK average wage of £~19000 that's going to wipe out your entire saving. It's also going to devalue your property which will affect the amount you can borrow against it to pay for all the rest of your crazy.

Probably also worth noting that the inflation on TV licences is nowhere near 4% pa (although some commentators have suggested it should follow the rate of inflation).

So make of that what you will.

Not to mention that the lead would block incoming signals too, not just outgoing ones, so I'd get no reception anyway.