I don't understand this irrational phobia. Is the fact that it is flying triggering some deeper mechanisms in the brain?
It reminds me of my two year old's reaction to wasps.
You are a nuisance. Your comment reminds me of a two year old's reaction to being asked to stop running around screaming.
Don't get me wrong. Drones made a huge leap the recent years and from a hardware manufacturer's POV there is business. There is also great stuff like drone races, drone cams and selfie cam drones.
But will there be really much more? Are safety concerns, public regulation and limited use cases in many areas (such as urban areas) giving drones a hard time?
Businesses should welcome registration because people won't just look at it and think "well I could do that myself!" because of the additional hurdle; hurdles that businesses will happily jump through. It'll separate drones more clearly into "toy" grade drones and business grade drones.
The businesses for drones are anywhere that you want equipment (particularly cameras but not necessarily) that previously it was too difficult or expensive to put a person for either due to practicality or safety reasons.
Drones are now reasonably cheap self-stabilising mobile platforms. They won't be going away, they'll just be incorporated into other businesses where appropriate. It's easy to laugh at drone-races and selfie-cams but as drones become more reliable, more efficient and quieter they'll just naturally find use cases.
What the proposed registration process is attempting to address is the misuse of hobby multi-rotors.
The difficulty the it faces is in retrofitting it to an existing market. Those who are too dumb or ignorant to fly legally (and since multi-rotors have become too easy to acquire and fly, there are many), are going to be the ones who also fail to register.
Requiring registration prior to purchase is one possibility, and having mandatory geo-fencing on all new systems seems like the only way to gradually introduce a system that restricts use in controlled airspace, and over populated areas, but it will never be able to account for every scenario in which people insist on breaking the law, invading privacy or putting others at risk of injury.
Imagine the potential chaos if all those the Deliveroo/Just eat drivers were replaced with drones heading to and from restaurants and takeaways with no formally defined routes.
It might work in less dense populated areas but I don't see drone delivery as a thing in any U.K. city ever happening.
FAA is not a good example to cite either as their position on drones is a total mess and their existing regulations are a patchwork of legacy rules designed to cover model aircraft.
So 250g is the maximum limit for unregulated drones.
So will open source drone firmware become illegal?
I prefer the light touch (ala Mopeds/Scooters) where it's simple and easy, insurance at a flat rate, easy to transfer ownership. Something akin to cars with a v5 document, etc would be overkill.
I don't really have an opinion on the weight limits, how much does something have to weigh to take out an eye, or cause a motor vehicle to crash?
I think things should be put in to context a bit. Seaguls where I live usually weigh more than 1-1.5Kg, and they are arguably more dangerous to be around if you happen to be a child holding an icecream!
I dare say though that I trust the bird's self preservation instinct more than I trust flakey wifi and an FPV pilot somewhere a few hundred meters away.
If some people would adhere to speed limits like they praise "drone regulations", the world would actually be safer.
I'm kind of offended here. Motherland Russia had this first!
Interestingly, the FAA still promulgates the notion that you have to pay them $5 for the privilege of flying.
Now, I don't like laws banning stuff, but these handheld 150-2000 mW lasers can seriously damage someone's eyes. And I'm not going to risk blindness or poor eyesight for the rest of my life because some idiot thought it looked cool.
What's a legitimate use for them? It seems to me that they exist only because "high power, fuck yeah". 50mW is enough for pointing at stuff, and you need industrial lasers to cut something.
Shining them in the sky and at people is already illegal, technically, but this is a real case where preventing purchase would be better.
Historically, I've used them for stargazing (i.e. pointing out stars for other people to look at), burning / igniting things I don't want to get near (and where I'm too lazy to remote ignite), and engraving.
Why am I not surprised?
- Car License.
- TV License.
- Remember Personal Radios needed a License.
- Gun License.
- Travel License (passport).
Now Drone License. sigh
What else can the UK Government think of taxing?
It is hard to see how an expensive drone licence would be justified though.
If they want to enforce this properly they need to do it at the device level. If I'm not supposed to watch TV then make it impossible for me not to do so, put a login behind it or something.
Not to mention the ABSURD methods they go to intimidate you into paying, even when you don't watch live television (in my case, I don't even own an aerial cable), every month I get a threatening, amateur looking, in red writing, letter telling me about my crimes and that I will just end up in court.... If I kept these letters I'd have to rent a garage just to store them, have these people ever heard about saving trees? :)
It's a silly tax, with silly regulations and silly enforcement that needs to go.
As for the letters, just tell them you aren't eligible to pay. How do they know if you don't tell them?
For iPlayer, they are bringing in a BBC account which will be tied to your license fee, so you can't accidentally stream it.
Trump brands a lot of things fake news. They rarely are.
Or they could stop accusing people of being criminals without any evidence.
I've had one of these letters and they start from a position of extreme prejudice against the recipient; it's not a pleasant reminder that you may need a license it's an accusation that you're a criminal and will get a big fine.
You have to pay to tell them you don't own a TV too, there's no freepost envelope and no freephone number. It's a small thing but given the aggressive nature of their accusation I refuse to pay even 40p to let them know we had no TV on the premises.
Like they hold the purse strings and control every other channel?
The recent revelations of BBC presenters salaries reveals that they don't want to compete with other stations on a level playing field, but they do want to pay themselves competitive salaries. Well you can't have it both ways...
Also the BBC salaries for the most part are on-par with ITV and C4.
Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.
> The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are
> "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all?
> Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat
> it is why.
No, the BBC has to compete against commercial content, and therefore has to pay
to hire talent that is competitive with the talent hired by commercial
broadcasters. There are good reasons for this:
- Making popular content that is of high quality increases the quality of
commercial offerings, as it has to compete for viewers.
- If the BBC did not make popular content that most people want to watch, it
would not be perceived as good value for money, and therefore you would lose
the benefits of having a strong public broadcaster.
This is made clear in the charter:
"The BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and
across a range of services and platforms which sets the standard in the
United Kingdom and internationally."
> Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really
> should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.
Working for the BBC is a privilege, but if it did not pay its staff, it would
not have any. There is a balance to be struck -- people are willing to work for
less than they could be paid elsewhere, but if the difference is too big then
they will leave.
The amount being paid to talent and execs is high, but at least in some cases
is a lot lower than people are being paid on commercial channels, and therefore
it is possibly justified.
You should not have to compete for viewers. I agree with the other poster - the point is to have a guaranteed revenue stream so you can, frankly, make unpopular content. By definition if it is popular the private sector can fund this via advertising.
The charter is there to neuter the BBC. It has worked.
That is one point, and that is currently being done. If the BBC were only to make unpopular content, it would be unpopular, and people would not want to pay for it. It is supposed to be balanced in a way that benefits the public the most.
I can see the argument that the balance between making popular and unpopular content is not currently as good as it could be, but the model when looked at as a whole seems quite sensible.
BBC should provide high quality alternatives - if commercial stations show the football they show something else, if commercial stations are showing singing/dancing BBC should show something else, etc..
If a talk-show host wants a large six-figure sum they should go look in the commercial sector, if they can't get it the BBC should happily give them a reasonable wage (and not through some shell production company either), or give someone else a chance.
I imagine where the conflict arises is that BBC wants popularist shows to sell through BBC World.
For things like F1 BBC should only be stepping in if no commercial station will take it as FTA, the cost/benefit is very slim fit such things if ITV would show it and BBC prop up the price by bidding against them for UK rights.
I basically agree with your point about providing a high quality alternative. That's what the charter says the BBC should do, however it is supposed to be a balance, in order to provide a service that people want to pay for.
> If a talk-show host wants a large six-figure sum they should go look in the commercial sector
Yeah, there needs to be a balance. The BBC should use its position to grow new talent, but equally it needs to be able to pay close to market rates in order to make high quality output.
> For things like F1 BBC should only be stepping in if no commercial station will take it as FTA
I agree that it must push up the price, but I'm not sure by how much. The BBC doesn't dominate sports coverage (there seems to be a change to what is shown every year), so I don't see why the market rate with/without the BBC would be that much different.
People like watching watching sports on the BBC, because the coverage is good and there are no adverts. I don't watch sports myself, but I find value in the BBC output in other ways, so it balances out.
On the BBC the only content produced that could not be satisfied by commercial ventures is BBC4 and Radio3/6.
You're required to have a TV licence to watch catch up programs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/tvlicence This rule has been in force for some months now.
> am I breaking the law? Am I considered a criminal by the state?
I imagine the case law on this issue is very well understood by now. I don't know the answer but I doubt there are any legal uncertainties.
> the ABSURD methods they go to intimidate you into paying, even when you don't watch live television
I'm not sure what it's like for those like you who have device but no aerial. I have no device. Once every two years I get a letter asking me to fill in a web form to confirm I still have no device. It's annoying, sure, but your reaction seems massively over the top.
As for "over the top" - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one?wt.mc_id=... clearly states a device could be pretty much any electronic device at this stage, not just TVs - So how does this work? How is it proven you don't actually benefit from a TV programs? Not having a TV doesn't seem to be enough in the eyes of the law. I don't necessarily want my details attached to a private company I have no business with, as I understand it they are just outsourced enforcement and there is no legal obligation to provide them with any of my details (the letters aren't even addressed to "me" as a person, but simply the "occupier"). I'd rather keep getting the letters than give them information they have no right to.
It's all ambiguous and nonsensical to me. If there is anything I actually enjoyed in my southern European origins is that governmental funded extortion was at least direct.
> but your reaction seems massively over the top.
Yes. There are a bunch of youtube videos of people saying the best thing to do is to never respond to the letters, but those channels also have people complaining about multiple letters and visits from TVL.
Yeah I tried that strategy for a while and got pissed off with how many letters I was getting. Then I filled in the web form and it's a once-in-two-year thing for me now. Much better!
The BBC iPlayer service will warn you about content that needs a licence - it will ask before playing "do you have a licence?".
> every month I get a threatening, amateur looking, in red writing
Have you told them that you do not watch tv as it's broadcast or anything on iPlayer? Once you tell them they should stop writing to you for two years.
Last I checked the BBC receive something like 40% of the collected revenues.
So, while it ostensibly pays for the BBC, it's really just another arm of the octopus like serco, who run everything from prisons to call centres (in prisons!) to the dvla to the inland revenue.
They're the biggest company nobody has ever heard of.
> It is expected that Capita will earn £1.10bn – £1.55bn from its contract with the BBC if it runs its maximum 15 years from July 2012
The BBC gets over £4b per year.
> Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (77.5%) of the BBC's total income of £4.827 billion in 2015–2016.
The licensing website puts it at 5.5%. Either way, 40% is a silly number to throw around.
 http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01482.pdf , page 6
I own a TV but I don't watch any public broadcasts or cable, so requiring a license for that seems weird at first glance.
In the UK, this also means we don't have any advertising on the BBC channels or website, which is nice.
On a few programs you might get the host of the showing saying at the end mentioning one of the sponsors, but that's the worst it gets. The website (for radio, I don't see any on the TV website)) does have a few non-awful display ads, but streaming everything is free.
In my personal opinion this is a more progressive model - poor people don't have to pay money for public television access.
In the UK, I think we take the BBC for granted. With a fairly-limited budget they produce extremely high-quality and varied ad-free programming, news and have an excellent web presence. So many shows are exported and shown across the world, it can only be a benefit for the country to have our culture, and values projected in such a way.
Additionally, my two favourite stations are BBC4 and Radio 4. BBC4 shows a large number of niche documentaries that simply wouldn't ever be considered, let alone funded, shot and aired for other channels, and Radio 4 is simply unparalleled in quality.
I understand that's one stated reason for the license tax, but the American model pretty well proves that it isn't necessary to get independent content that's not ad-driven.
The BBC has about US$6.5B and produces a much wider array of programmes than PBS and NPR combined. So not relying on public's mandatory contribution would clearly not work.
I have myself gone to France without a passport (which may have been illegal under French law; I certainly have the right to travel there freely, but I don't know what they insist people carry), gone shopping, and come back again, and I know someone coming back through border control who simply gave his name and address.
Getting your ID in Italy is about one Euro (printing photos is more expensive than that) and it's valid for ten years. All that's required for an Italian is a means of being identified by an officer; the national ID card is just a convenient one. A driving license is enough of you prefer.
That's only if they use part of the spectrum regulated by Ofcom. If you use some of the unregulated spectrum then it's fine.
The rest of the licenses make sense. The TV license is particularly important as it pays for the BBC, keeping it relatively free from government interference whilst still creating top-notch content.
> - Remember Personal Radios needed a License.
To Add to the list:
- Fishing License
- Dog License (re-introduce!)
We can only hope they don't get much done and are busy with Brexit.
If you find someone flying a drone dangerously, at the moment it's hard to know where to draw the line at what is legal, which then makes it difficult to prosecute someone who's flying drones recklessly (such as flying over airports).
If you have drone registration, then in the same scenario you can either take away their license (an action which doesn't require proof beyond reasonable doubt) or if they aren't licensed, you have a very easy law to prosecute against (flying without a license).
I really don't think this is correct. It may not be a foolproof deterrent, but it's certainly a deterrent.
I don't like when this argument is trotted out for gun control and I don't like it here.
Also, with guns, it's you, there, holding the gun, so it can be enforced.
With drones, you could be in a moving car a mile away. How does that get enforced?