On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:06:38 +0100, michael norman wrote: >> Yes but what about people who never ever watch TV at all. There are >> some, believe it or not - my parents for instance. They have computers >> and internet, but why should they pay a charge for something they will >> never use,
That is a problem but sort of worked around if you call it a "Media Licence" that is it gives the household the ability to legally view any media from any source. Be that Netflix, 4OD, YouTube or, at the extreme, the graphics/still images that make up a web page. >> just because they have some equipment (whose primary purpose is not for >> accessing TV!) which theoretically could access on demand content. It's not that long ago that the possession of "receiving apparatus" was enough to trigger the requirement to hold a TV Licence. >> How will you differentiate between those who don't and those who say they >> don't? Just get the ISPs to report those customers that access "media" sites? Or just extend the current regulations relating to copyright infringement. > There are many people mostly I guess a bit younger than your parents who > don't watch live tv or even want to do so. What do they watch ? Netflix > Amazon tv (to give two examples amongst many) both of which they have to > pay for But at least that is their choice. I don't watch commercial TV stations but I still pay for them and the shareholder dividends etc, even those that don't have any ability to watch any TV still pay. -- Cheers Dave. _______________________________________________ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer