So what do you do in the evening, then?

[davywavy]

In the comments to my post the other day, I mentioned that I don't own a TV. This is unusual - figures from the TV licensing people suggest that 99.5% of households in the country have a telly in them and such is the ubiquity of the gogglebox that the Joseph Rountree Foundation uses non-ownership of one as an indicator of poverty (this surprises me, as the people I know who don't own a TV tend to be both better educated and in better jobs than the average).
The are distinct advantages to not owning a TV. I don't run the risk of wasting my time watching witless crap like Eastenders, X-Factor, Big Brother or the new Doctor Who, and anything decent like Life on Mars I can pick up DVDs of at Cash Converters six months after they come out.
What was interesting about my comment was that it pulled out a number of other people on my friends list who don't own TV's. According to the above statistic, only one person in every 200 should be telly-less, and so I should only have one person reading me who doesn't as opposed to several which seems to be the case.

So, to satisfy my curiosity:

[Poll #1070038]

Comments

[drplokta]

You left out "I own a TV to watch DVDs and play games on, but it's not tuned or connected to an aerial and so I don't have to pay for a license."

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Nobody's perfect!

[(Anonymous)]

I have a 14" TV which I don't watch, in order to pay a licence fee which pays for radio 4.

Actually, I have been watching Heroes. It's not very good.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Heroes is kinda like Firefly - a bunch of low-level player character archetypes and the DM's girlfriend's 21st-level, impossibly attractive character have adventures designed to appeal to the geek fraternity.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's better than Firefly, not nearly as smug and actually funny.

(Ducks and hides from angry nerds.)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Neither Firefly nor Heroes do it for me for the same reason that I can't bear to listen to people telling me stories about how incredibly kewl their 23rd level barbarian/bard/ninja is.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I'm developing ST selective hearing. 'Uh-huh, yeah, sure, uh-huh, another gin you say? Uh-huh, yeah... that sounds nice, submit it in a downtime." The smoking ban came at a great time for those types of things.

Perhaps that filter is making me like Heroes. That or my obsession with laughing at hapless Japanese people. Either way.

Deconstructing Firefly

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Mal Reynolds: 7th Level fighter/theif, party leader.
Jayne: 5th level 1/2-orc fighter.
Book: 4th level cleric
Inara: 4th level illusionist, played by a male gamer.
River Tam: 21st level Ninja/Psionicist, played by the DM's 17-stone girlfriend.

Re: Deconstructing Firefly

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

My eyes glazed over when I read 'Fi'

I really didn't understand the appeal of Fir-zzzzzz when it was on. Saw the pilot and thought it looked a lot like Crapylon 5, except without G'kar.

Inara: 4th level illusionist, played by a male gamer.

This is true....... :(

[elbly.livejournal.com]

But I'd do the cheerleader given half the chance...

Mmmmmmm! nubile cheerleaders! mmmmmmmmmm!

[astartesyriaca.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a former DM's girlfriend, I found these equal parts hysterical and embarrassing.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

There may be a certain amount of residual bitterness amongst the male players going on around here.

[astartesyriaca.livejournal.com]

Heh, I noticed. That and fat jokes, which are fine, but somewhat ironic when performed by gamer geeks who socialize online (and apparently in some cases live in council housing).

Flicker, flicker.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Gamers and poor social skills going hand in hand? Never!

[astartesyriaca.livejournal.com]

At least LJ is scent-free ;)

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

LULZY, biotch, do your fucking research before you go off on hypermoral PC tangents about my social skills.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Yes you do have to pay for a licence.

If you have had the reciever removed from the TV (which normally costs abotut £150) then you don't have to, but regardless of whether it is tuned in/connected to an aerial/non of the above, if it still has the ability to recieve signals if you did connect and tune then a liecence is required.

This was to close the loop hole for people who had the offical come round from de-tuning and removing the aerial while s/he was distracted.

This also includes Video recorders btw - we do not have a TV but we do have a video recorder, and as such we pay our licence fee. Why he won't take it to the man and have it's bits removed I'll never know!

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced, there's nothing in THE LAW that says that and I had one of their drones confirm it when I actually cared.

Back in the day when we weren't watching television we refused to have the TV detuned. We found the best way to avoid the licensing people was not to answer the door. We did get an exception thingie once.... and shortly had the same threatening letters through the post box.

Their call centre is run by the same group of fuck ups that collect for the London congestion charge.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Oh their call centre are monkeys, no question about it. And yes, you don't have to let the officials in when they come round - they have no warrent and are just pushy bastards, but last time I looked, there was something stipulating that if you had something that could recieve signals you had to cough up. Obviously this might just be well worded and not actually covered by law.

Since we listen to BBC Radio 2 (I'm a TOG and proud of it!) and I watch CSI when there's a new series out, but that's it. Of course I AM addicted to BBC costume dramas - but I buy them on DVD rather than watch them on TV. Mmmmm! Colin Firth in a wet shirt! Mmmmmmm!

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm, BBC costume dramas!

They're also claiming if you have a computer or a mobile phone, you have to pay a license fee. Apparently because these devices are capable of receiving a television signal. Uh-huh.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Obviously it depends on the actual computer or mobile phone, but yes, in theory if you can recieve the signal then you probably should pay the licence fee.

It might be an outdated system, but we shouldn't expect something for nothing - if someone opts to buy a phone that can recieve a TV signal then they should consider the implications of it - and to be honest the phone company should probably include a monthly licence fee in the cost of the contract.

I think it's just getting to the point now where we're going to have to accept that either we pay per view, or we have to have adverts every 5 minutes that we can't delete.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

But most phones and computers aren't actually capable of receiving the signal. Computers need specific TV tuner cards.... and the BBC uses Real Player, which is the biggest pile of crap ever and requires all sorts of special software. Phones, again, require massive upgrades to play streaming media. Or at least media of any significance. Just because they so happen to be capable of receiving clips, doesn't mean they should be subject to the license fee.

I think I'd rather have the advertising. But then, I is American.

Honestly though, the BBC receives quite a lot of revenue from product placement anyway, there's already plenty of advertising in their programs. It wouldn't be a big switch.

[drplokta]

No, I have a letter from TV Licensing confirming that you don't, and their FAQ here also implies it's OK: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1

[zenmeisterin.livejournal.com]

The same applies to me here too. No licence fee becaise the TV sets in the flats are incapable of recieving a signal owing to 1) No external aerial in the building, 2) building blocks reception so all an internal aerial picks up is fuzz, 3) we don't subscribe to any cable/satellite networks.

[zenmeisterin.livejournal.com]

This option also applies to me.