[nvm0n2]

> if you don’t have to pay for it ... the BBC isn’t funded through taxes, the consumer has choice ... just don’t pay for it. watch something else ... vote with your feet like you can do with any other streaming service

You keep talking as if the license fee is a normal TV subscription. Are you British because there seems to be a really deep misunderstanding here?

The license fee is a tax. You have to pay it if you watch or record any TV broadcast and that includes streaming, any live TV at all in the UK, and that applies even if you never watch the BBC and don't want to. Got a Sky TV or cable subscription? Doesn't matter, you still gotta pay the BBC. There is no just watch something else and don't pay. There is no vote with your feet. That's why it's called a TV license and not a BBC license.

[augustulus]

what I don’t understand is why people say things that they don’t know are true. you can’t know this is true, because it isn’t. next time the tv license people send you a letter, actually read it

[nvm0n2]

From the UK government website:

https://www.gov.uk/find-licences/tv-licence

"You need a TV Licence to watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast, and to watch on-demand BBC programmes on iPlayer"

In this thread you keep insisting I'm lying and I keep showing you, with evidence, that you're wrong, but you just keep doubling down and ranting about right wing people. What specifically do you object to in my description?

[augustulus]

at what point did I accuse you of lying?

I pointed out that you (probably accidentally) accused me of lying, if that’s what you’re confused by? or do you mean that I accused you of being confidently wrong? being wrong isn’t lying

does the fact that you were completely misinformed about the main substance of the previous comment not make you question the grounding of your opinions on this? where did you get the idea that you needed a TV license to stream, or do anything other than watch live TV?

[nvm0n2]

> where did you get the idea that you needed a TV license to stream, or do anything other than watch live TV?

You're arguing with a straw man. I've never said you need to pay the license if you only watch Netflix. I've said that the tax structure protects the BBC and allows it to ignore popular types of programming. You've been unable to refute this point and so have segued into trying to argue that the license fee isn't really a tax, which is (a) not a point I made and (b) wrong.

You can avoid the license fee by watching only US based streamers on a laptop as long as you don't care about news, sport or any of the other categories of TV that Netflix doesn't provide, just like you could always avoid it by not having a TV or radio. That doesn't mean it's not a tax. Other taxes you can avoid by choice include: income tax, auto taxes, taxes on flights and so on.

I suspect you're being confused by the definition of "streaming". Most streamed TV is still considered to be TV because it's a live broadcast (a channel, that you could tune into). iPlayer is the closest to a UK Netflix and that is also covered. It's only non-BBC "video on demand" that isn't taxed (yet!)

As for lying, you have constantly made statements like that I "choose to misunderstand" or that I'm saying things that are "obviously untrue". I know in your mind technicalities are everything and you think you've never accused anyone of being dishonest, but by the rules of normal conversation you have, repeatedly. And you never apologized when I showed you hard data disproving these "obviously untrue" things.

[augustulus]

here’s your argument: “the BBC doesn’t focus on my genre enough therefore the entire thing is bad, but it’s especially bad because I’m convinced that I’m required to pay it to watch any relevant TV (also I think they’re politically biased but that has nothing to do with any of this)”

if you think I’m somehow avoiding your argument, or finding technicalities, I’ll address each part

>the BBC doesn’t focus on sci-fi enough. (or sci-fi and fantasy when it suits your argument).

I’ve already linked to the BBC’s large selection of sci-fi and fantasy programming, which you ignored. I also pointed out three major, popular sci-fi shows, two of which you dismissed, despite both being wildly popular with adults, and one you ignored. one of which is possibly the biggest sci-fi show ever, and has just made a £100m deal with Disney+ to be broadcast internationally, which really does indicate executives’ lack of interest

also, do any of the other British channels have consistent sci-fi output? no, except publicly-owned and license-fee funded channel 4. how strange.

>I’m required to pay the license fee, therefore this perceived lack of sci-fi media content for me to consume is a quasi-communistic authoritarian impingement upon my freedom

if streaming - the primary form of TV watching for most people these days - is allowed without a license, then it’s not really required, is it?

so is streaming allowed?

you first argued that streaming just isn’t allowed explicitly by the rules, then when it was pointed out that this is unsupported by the article you linked with, you either tried to redefine what streaming is to fit your original claim, or illustrated your quite incorrect conception of what streaming actually is

no streaming service is “a live broadcast” or a “channel” that you tune into. they’re apps, on your TV, or on a set-top box, or yes, on a laptop, that you use over wi-fi. in short, streaming is watching video over the internet, which is mostly how people watch TV these days. and it’s not covered. how do you mostly watch TV?

approaching your position more broadly, there’s this possible implication that you would be okay with the BBC, if it just had a Star Trek or a Black Mirror, or Altered Carbon or whatever your standard for sci-fi is. this seems really odd. would the BBC be bad for not having one person’s desired selection of horror shows? they have a big audience too. or what about basketball coverage? plenty of viewers for that. is this true? if the BBC did fit your ideas for what it made, would you be okay with it? or are you politically against the entire idea of its existence in the first place, and this sci-fi thing is just a proxy argument?

besides all this,

the “strawman” accusation is often the resort of someone who has been found to be wrong about something key and is trying to cut their losses. it’s only a strawman if it’s not central to the entire thing we’re talking about. if it were really a strawman, you wouldn’t continue to try and argue the point for another two paragraphs. it’s either a strawman, or something you’re going to viscerally argue, but clearly not both.

and accusing you of choosing to misunderstand is not accusing you of lying, but accusing you of being subconsciously compromised by your political position. lying to yourself but not me. I suspect that if you gave the BBC a fair go, you would find a lot to like

[tolien]

>> as they're broadcast

That’s the key. Don’t watch live TV, no license fee required.

This part from you:

> You have to pay it if you watch or record any TV broadcast and that includes streaming

Total bollocks.

[nvm0n2]

"Live TV" includes streamed live TV and "broadcast TV" is always considered to be licensable.

You can avoid the license fee only if you watch exclusively internet streamers like Netflix which aren't TV channels. Which means: no TV news or sport. Pretty major components of why people watch TV to begin with.

But this is well into straw men territory. This thread started with me saying that the tax-based structure of the BBC lets it ignore sci-fi. Now you're arguing that you don't have to pay the tax if you are willing to forego the benefits of live TV, which is a point I readily concede because it's irrelevant to the one I made.