Some more observations on Canal Boat Diaries

[Derek R.]

I think this has been established.

[haggis]

10 hours ago, LadyG said:

Ive recently had another birthday btw, I think the Govt.UK website  is quite clear, but anyway, I just don't watch it.

Happy belated birthday!

[MrsM]

56 minutes ago, Derek R. said:

I think this has been established.

Indeed. I'm just labouring the point because I used to believe you could watch live ITV, Ch4, Ch5 etc without a licence as long as you didn't watch BBC channels. Not sure if this was ever true and, if so, when it changed. 

[IanD]

But to get back on subject -- you can legally watch all the series of Canal Boat Diaries online on the U channel, whether you have a TV license or not... 🙂 

 

https://u.co.uk/shows/canal-boat-diaries/watch-online

Edited September 26, 2024 by IanD

[Iain_S]

1 hour ago, MrsM said:

Indeed. I'm just labouring the point because I used to believe you could watch live ITV, Ch4, Ch5 etc without a licence as long as you didn't watch BBC channels. Not sure if this was ever true and, if so, when it changed. 

The TV licence is for the operation of a TV receiver, no matter what programme you watch, and  has been since its introduction. With the development of other methods of receiving visual material, I suspect it will go the same way as the radio receiving licence, which was rendered impossible to administer by portable transistor radios.

[David Mack]

11 hours ago, MrsM said:

Watch live on streaming services (like ITVX, All 4, YouTube and Amazon Prime Video).

Well I've learnt something there. I didn't know you need a TV licence to watch a YouTube live stream. I have occasionally done so without giving it a single thought, although as I have a TV licence anyway it's not been a problem.

But if I'm away from home - on the boat for example, presumably I can only legally watch a livestream on my phone if it is not plugged into a charger.

[ditchcrawler]

29 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Well I've learnt something there. I didn't know you need a TV licence to watch a YouTube live stream. I have occasionally done so without giving it a single thought, although as I have a TV licence anyway it's not been a problem.

But if I'm away from home - on the boat for example, presumably I can only legally watch a livestream on my phone if it is not plugged into a charger.

Do you have a licence at home that you are not using while on the boat 

[Derek R.]

11 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Do you have a licence at home that you are not using while on the boat 

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

Quote:

 

"You need a TV Licence if you:

• watch or record live TV on any channel or service
• use BBC iPlayer

You may be able to get a free or discounted TV Licence if you’re 75 or over and get Pension Credit, or if you’re blind or in residential care.

You do not need a TV Licence to watch:

• streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus
• on-demand TV through services like All 4 and Amazon Prime Video
• videos on websites like YouTube
• videos or DVDs "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The licence will be registered at a home address with post code. From Martin Lewis's website, section 14:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/#needtoknow-14

Quote:

 

"Your licence doesn't just cover you watching TV at home, but also watching or recording shows as they're being broadcast on TV or using BBC iPlayer, on any of these devices:

• Computers, including laptops and tablets
• Mobile phones
• Games consoles
• Digital boxes, including Freeview, Sky and Virgin
• Blu-ray, DVD and VHS recorders

As long as the address where you live is licensed, you're also covered to watch TV outside your home using any device powered solely by its own internal batteries and not connected to an aerial or plugged into the mains. This includes your mobile phone, laptop and tablet. "

[my emphasis]

 

End quote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There's the catch: powered solely by its own internal batteries and not connected to an aerial or plugged into the mains.

 

Bottom line?

They are after your money, By hook or by crook.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Back on OP topic:

I watched two of Robbie Cumming's YT videos yesterday. One of his compromised 'goings on' at Staniland Marina, where he had 90litres of diesel nicked off the wharfside and CoC issues; and the other where he ran aground on the Aire(?), with a rescue performed by S. Yorkshire Fire & Rescue which went into the hours of darkness.

 

Running aground on any river is fraught with problems but cutting corners on bends is asking for trouble.

I once ran aground with the big Dutchman partially due to bad advice from the stand-by lock keeper at Shepperton. We were going downstream on the Thames and intending to take Desborough Cut, when lockie said we wouldn't get under the bridges that crossed the 'Cut'. I doubted this, but after asking if the Halliford Bends were deep enough (we drew 5'), he said we would be fine.

 

Leaving the lock we kept D'oyley Carte Island on the right, and began turning into the first left hand bend. All well with the bow centre stream until half way round and the bow touched bottom. Going astern had no effect against the stream which pushed the back end aground in the opposite shallows where we came to a dead stop athwart the stream. On the VHF I called for assistance from Thames Conservancy, and within the space of an hour there arrived two Conservancy launches and one Police boat. All three tied side by side and with towing capstains set up, they opened up the Thornycrofts and we lost sight of them in the smoke! They dragged us stern first back into the main channel effortlessly (the crews quite enjoyed the experience) and after we got into the 'Cut', details were taken. I think the stand-by lockie must have received 'words', and no further action was taken. Journey resumed.

 

Had we actually contunued around Halliford Bends there could have been further issues with many small boats that are moored in the channel, and maybe more disaster created.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2024 by Derek R.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Derek R. said:

There's the catch: powered solely by its own internal batteries and not connected to an aerial or plugged into the mains.

Indeed. But what is "the mains" in this context? Can I watch a livestream on my phone if it is plugged into a USB socket which in turn is powered from the boat's batteries? Or one of those portable USB battery packs?

[Derek R.]

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Indeed. But what is "the mains" in this context? Can I watch a livestream on my phone if it is plugged into a USB socket which in turn is powered from the boat's batteries? Or one of those portable USB battery packs?

"Mains" usually means the socket from which is drawn electricity from the National Grid.

Device batteries - or boat batteries? It's all down to the wording, and how it gets translated, and who is translating it, and for what reason. Also: WHO was the author of the text in the first place!

 

If you are watching 'live stream' on your mobile which is drawing current from the boats 'internal' batteries, then I would consider that meets the requirements of NOT being connected/plugged into the 'Mains'. This is not legal advice, just applied logic.

[IanD]

39 minutes ago, Derek R. said:

"Mains" usually means the socket from which is drawn electricity from the National Grid.

Device batteries - or boat batteries? It's all down to the wording, and how it gets translated, and who is translating it, and for what reason. Also: WHO was the author of the text in the first place!

 

If you are watching 'live stream' on your mobile which is drawing current from the boats 'internal' batteries, then I would consider that meets the requirements of NOT being connected/plugged into the 'Mains'. This is not legal advice, just applied logic.

 

And that should logically be true whether said power comes directly from DC -- because this is via a DC-DC converter anyway -- or from the boat 230Vac -- which comes via a DC-AC converter first.

 

If the licensing authorities try to argue against this I expect they'd get tied into legal knots by any competent lawyer... 😉 

 

I'm sure they'd then try to argue about what a "device" is and what "internal batteries" means, rather than relying on the "plugged into the mains" -- though of course this makes no sense at all, why should you not need a license on your laptop running off its own batteries but need one as soon as you plug the power adaptor in? What if the adaptor is plugged in but not switched on? Same laptop, same location (boat or home)...

[David Mack]

A classic example of the law not keeping up with technology. When TV licences were first introduced in 1946 all TV receivers were heavy bulky things with significant power requirements, which had to run off the mains, and so the licence could be linked to the premises where the TV was used. The sets were expensive, and there was only one channel, so households only had a single TV which the whole family watched. When portable TVs with internal batteries became available in the 1960s, presumably as a concession to campers, caravaners (and boaters), you were allowed to use your portable set away from home, as long as the main licensed set was not in use at the same time. And for such users limiting the use to internal batteries was probably not much of an issue, and would also discourage abuse of the concession (e.g. two households attempting to 'share' a single licence).

Fast forward a few decades, and we all carry small portable TV viewing devices, there are multiple channels with a huge range of content, and the family no longer gathers around a single receiver in the living room for the main evening broadcast. Viewing has become a much more individual act taking place anywhere and at any time. And if our device has sufficient charge we may power it from its internal batteries, if not we plug it in.

The radio licence was abolished in 1971 because it was too difficult to keep tabs on portable transistor radios. The same should have happened with the TV licence a decade or two back, but has been stymied by the government's insistence that it is still needed to fund one broadcaster, even though those holding the licence might never view that broadcaster output. Far better surely for the National Broadcaster to be funded out of general taxation, free of the need to bend to the whims of commercial advertisers, and so able to maintain a standard of output, which then encourages the commercial broadcasters to compete at the same level. But as we have seen discussed on other threads, UK governments of all complexions are very reluctant to provide the relatively small sums of public money needed to properly fund areas of wider public benefit.

[Tony Brooks]

20 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Far better surely for the National Broadcaster to be funded out of general taxation, free of the need to bend to the whims of commercial advertisers, and so able to maintain a standard of output, which then encourages the commercial broadcasters to compete at the same level.

 

Yes, except we have seen how even with the licence fee, governments have been seen to try to control output and directing bias by limiting fee increases. Using general taxation gives governments even more power to control output.

 

There is also the question about how much output is to the taste of the fee payers and how much to the tastes of the BBC execs.

 

I can't see much difference between ITV/Ch4 news and the BBC output. I also get the impression that the drama type output from ITV is more accessible than the BBC's. At least with the commercial channels, we know what the commercials are about, unlike the BBC's practice of running commercials for they own products (some of which are just weird) between programmes and also ostensibly as news stories during the news.

 

As the BBC execs seem to think they are doing a good job and serving ALL fee payers, maybe it is time for the BBC to put its existence where its mouth is and go subscription. I think they may have a rude awakening.

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

the BBC execs seem to think they are doing a good job and serving ALL fee payers, maybe it is time for the BBC to put its existence where its mouth is and go subscription. I think they may have a rude awakening.

So would anyone who wanted to listen to the radio.

It'd be the end of most classical music, which would be a shame whether you like it much or not. Without BBC competition, again whether you like its stuff or not, you'd get news a la Fox news in the US.

Perhaps it's a price worth paying to save most households a hundred quid a year...

[Bee]

There was a time before television (yes really) and In this house at least we are slowly approaching a time after television. Being an old git and getting grumpier by the day I no longer have the patience to watch anything with adverts. That kid who is whinging about needing the Fairy bottle to be empty so he can make a space ship needs to be sent to bed with no supper and those women discussing some sort of absorbent pants liners need to get a life. Anyway, more seriously, none of my grown up offspring really watch telly these days, one uses it for kids programmes for his family and watches Al Jazeera for the news, the other two really only use it as a screen for games. On the boat with limited electricity and the need to find the satellite every time we move the thing our viewing drops to virtually zero, news a couple of times a week but mostly Radio 2, 5 and 6. Radio  4 we can get on the normal radio till well South of Paris.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just Eastenders for me

 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Bee said:

There was a time before television (yes really) and In this house at least we are slowly approaching a time after television. Being an old git and getting grumpier by the day I no longer have the patience to watch anything with adverts. That kid who is whinging about needing the Fairy bottle to be empty so he can make a space ship needs to be sent to bed with no supper and those women discussing some sort of absorbent pants liners need to get a life. Anyway, more seriously, none of my grown up offspring really watch telly these days, one uses it for kids programmes for his family and watches Al Jazeera for the news, the other two really only use it as a screen for games. On the boat with limited electricity and the need to find the satellite every time we move the thing our viewing drops to virtually zero, news a couple of times a week but mostly Radio 2, 5 and 6. Radio  4 we can get on the normal radio till well South of Paris.

 

Ditto with adverts, I simply refuse to watch them, hate hate *hate* them... 😞 

 

So any BBC I can watch live (or on catchup) because there aren't any 🙂 

 

ITV/CH4 and so on we either record onto the HDD inside a Freeview+ box then watch them later or on timeshift by a quarter of an hour or so -- so you can skip the adverts, 1 minute per button press -- or failing that watch them on the catchup services where we don't see the adverts because there's a PiHole attached to the network which blocks them. Actually it blocks ads on anything streamed over the internet... 🙂 

 

I've now got a PiHole on the boat (Samsung smart monitor not TV so streaming only) but haven't had time to configure it yet, if you get it wrong it blocks all internet access...

 

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Yes, except we have seen how even with the licence fee, governments have been seen to try to control output and directing bias by limiting fee increases. Using general taxation gives governments even more power to control output.

 

There is also the question about how much output is to the taste of the fee payers and how much to the tastes of the BBC execs.

 

I can't see much difference between ITV/Ch4 news and the BBC output. I also get the impression that the drama type output from ITV is more accessible than the BBC's. At least with the commercial channels, we know what the commercials are about, unlike the BBC's practice of running commercials for they own products (some of which are just weird) between programmes and also ostensibly as news stories during the news.

 

As the BBC execs seem to think they are doing a good job and serving ALL fee payers, maybe it is time for the BBC to put its existence where its mouth is and go subscription. I think they may have a rude awakening.

 

The problem is that with broadcast TV it's very difficult to have a subscription model that doesn't block access to anyone like old fogies without internet access and online accounts or a mobile phone, because there's no back channel or authentication method...

Edited September 27, 2024 by IanD

[Tony Brooks]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

Ditto with adverts, I simply refuse to watch them, hate hate *hate* them... 😞 

 

So you do not consider the "trailers" between BBC programs as adverts for the BBC content. You don't consider grafting sections from other programs into the news to publicise those programs as adverts, and you do not consider whatever those weird cartoon animal are about as an advert for the BBC. Try watching I Player without it trying to serve you an advert for BBC content at the start, (the BBC calls them trailers, but really they are just adverts).

[LadyG]

13 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

So you do not consider the "trailers" between BBC programs as adverts for the BBC content. You don't consider grafting sections from other programs into the news to publicise those programs as adverts, and you do not consider whatever those weird cartoon animal are about as an advert for the BBC. Try watching I Player without it trying to serve you an advert for BBC content at the start, (the BBC calls them trailers, but really they are just adverts).

I d9nt think it really matters, just watch what you want to to watch, pick and mix. Llve life and be happy

[Tony Brooks]

32 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I d9nt think it really matters, just watch what you want to to watch, pick and mix. Llve life and be happy

 

I beg to differ. On commercial TV the adverts pay for the content, in that case do as you say, but I pay for BBC content and I have no wish to waste my time watching and listening to the adverts the BBC transmit. Making them cost money, and I think the animated animals probably cost a lot. That is Fee payers money that could be spent on programming. It is also time that should be devoted to Fee payers entertainment and information.

 

You also don't seem to condemn the pre-recorded sequences on the news that are really just longer adverts for various programmes and services under the guise of news.

[LadyG]

13 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I beg to differ. On commercial TV the adverts pay for the content, in that case do as you say, but I pay for BBC content and I have no wish to waste my time watching and listening to the adverts the BBC transmit. Making them cost money, and I think the animated animals probably cost a lot. That is Fee payers money that could be spent on programming. It is also time that should be devoted to Fee payers entertainment and information.

 

You also don't seem to condemn the pre-recorded sequences on the news that are really just longer adverts for various programmes and services under the guise of news.

I no longer watch BBC, or any other TV news, its too depressing and whereas at one time one sat down to watch the Six o Clock news, or News at Ten, those days have gone.

I pay a subscription to YouTube (removes ads) and that's my entertainment. Political news, if one can call it that, is not quite so left leaning and generally includes discussion.

I believe that a lot if the BBC programmes are made to be screened in other countries, eg the period dramas, documentaries etc, so that helps fund the business. It has to run as a.Business.

Edited September 27, 2024 by LadyG

[MrsM]

I happily pay £39.99 a year to stream all ITV output without ads - films, dramas, documentaries and yes I do still enjoy a regular fix of Corrie. Money well spent in my mind (and before you say it I hold my hands up to being a fully signed up sad, middle-aged woman).  

[Arthur Marshall]

As I really only turn the telly on if it's showing cricket, and that's now on Sky or TNT, you'd think I'd resent the BBC licence fee. But I listen the the radio all the time in the car, record plays and shows to play as I drive. I'd pay double for that, but scrap the universal fee and the only radio left would be prerecorded pop music, with which I can without do.

You can't have one without the other. And that's ignoring all the support the Beeb gives to the other arts, from music to comedy.

It's a bit like us. Let the canals go to a pure subscription model and you'd just get silt. The government that decided that was a good idea, just like its attack on the BBC, knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

4 minutes ago, MrsM said:

I happily pay £39.99 a year to stream all ITV output without ads - films, dramas, documentaries and yes I do still enjoy a regular fix of Corrie. Money well spent in my mind (and before you say it I hold my hands up to being a fully signed up sad, middle-aged woman).  

Lob the ads out, and, same as the BBC, you'd get no content. Sky is about £500 a year and most of it is repeats, old stuff or pure garbage. Which is all you'd get for forty quid.

Edited September 27, 2024 by Arthur Marshall

[Mike Hurley]

12 hours ago, LadyG said:

 

I pay a subscription to YouTube (removes ads) and that's my entertainment. 

Mine too but i use an adblocker that is free, i pay you tube zero.

[Jon57]

14 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Just Eastenders for me

 

Bet it's because of the Queen Vic 😂👍