TV licensing people are after me!

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4p
  • Start date Start date
You don;t have to pay for them.

A lot of people are now not watching live and using on demand services for free with some pay per view content.

it's not like with sky you can pick and choose which channels you want to pay for. You have to pay for a minimum package. Think of the bbc in the same way. it's part of the minimum package.

If I swith from sky to ntl I don't have to pay sky any more, if I switch from bbc to sky I must then pay sky and the BBC....
 
If I swith from sky to ntl I don't have to pay sky any more, if I switch from bbc to sky I must then pay sky and the BBC....

And?

Virgin still have a minimum subscription which you have to pay even if you only watch 2 out of the 60 channels. So it's like the BBC is the absolute minimum subscription you can get and you can add extras ontop. It would likely be delivered though virgin and skys base service which would go up in price. So you still would not have a choice.

they also do not have a mandate. This mandate is to benefit the population.

There's no money in news. Should we scrap it. I think impartial news is very much needed. Which is one of the major parts in the mandate. They do a good job at it as well, respected around the world. One or two things haven't be up to scratch, but the vast majority is.
Aye, and relatively little money in pure educational, or quality documentaries (certainly in the short term), not to mention new drama costs a fair bit and is a risk..

Any move to a subscription system would massively cut the BBC's ability to provide a varied range of content - they would have to try and compete for subscribers, which is completely at odds with giving a varied output.

Not to mention any subscription method would be a nightmare to implement at a reasonable cost (every TV, DVR, Freeview box would need a suitable cam and card, and the admin costs of that would be higher than the TVL), and that's before you consider what might happen with regards to radio (do the people that pay the sub pay for all the radio, do you sell off the radio services, or do you require every radio be fitted with a CAM or micro CAM making tens of millions obsolete over night).

When you consider how much the BBC costs us, compared to say Sky (and take into account we don't pay extra for every set, and are not tied to particular hardware models), it's cheaper with much more new content in general.
 
Last edited:
Luckily I don't pay the licence in my house or I wouldn't have one.

We should have a say what this money gets spent on and we might not have to see it wasted on crap like "Lee Nelson's well good show" which is quite the opposite of well good.
 
We should have a say what this money gets spent on and we might not have to see it wasted on crap like "Lee Nelson's well good show" which is quite the opposite of well good.

it's dictated by the mandate.

Do you have a choice what sky or virgin spend money on?

Would you not think it likely that BBC would be distributed in sky and virgins base package. meaning you would have to pay for it anyway and still not have a choice.
 
If the F1 goes back to a channel with adverts (I'm looking at you, ITV) I'll rage.
 
it's dictated by the mandate.

Do you have a choice what sky or virgin spend money on?

Would you not think it likely that BBC would be distributed in sky and virgins base package. meaning you would have to pay for it anyway and still not have a choice.

but if you dont like what they spend their money you stop paying them and not use their service, however if you want to watch sky but dont like what the bbc spend their money on you STILL have to pay the bbc...

I see no good argument for the BBC tax... sky and virgin dont force people to pay them who dont use their service so why should be bbc be able to force people to pay even if they maybe only watch sky (or virgin)
 
but dont like what the bbc spend their money on you STILL have to pay the bbc...
)

No you don't,

I see no good argument for the BBC tax... sky and virgin dont force people to pay them who dont use their service so why should be bbc be able to force people to pay even if they maybe only watch sky (or virgin)

A) sky/virgin have no mandate
B) you are forced to pay for channels you do not use on both sky and virgin.
C) it is very likely BBC would be in both skys and Virgins basic packages, so would be forced to pay for it anyway.
 
Last edited:
No you don't,

A) sky/virgin have no mandate
B) you are forced to pay for channels you do not use on both sky and virgin.
C) it is very likely BBC would be in both skys and Virgins basic packages, so would be forced to pay for it anyway.

so I can stop paying the TVL if I only use sky?

sky and Virgin have market forces to deal with, their unwritten mandate is to provide a service people want.. if they show lee nelsons well **** show ever 10mins no one will subscribe to them and they will go down the pan...

the BBC can put any crap on they like, they even show programs no one watches... I mean the BBC was a good idea when I was a kid and there were only a few channels, but its a service / tax thats no longer wanted or needed.
 
so I can stop paying the TVL if I only use sky?
If you stop watching live broadcasts.

can you stop paying sky subscription, if you don't watch or like any of the shopping channels you have to subscribe to?

It is the same principle. A basic package still has to be purchased and will still contain channels you think are rubbish, yet you still have no choice but to pay for them if you want the service.

You get rid of BBC, so i assume you will get rid of any tax towards the infastructure.

Who is therefore going to provide infrastructure. is 3,4 and 5 going to pay and maintain, expand it.

No, you will have to by a service and as part of that service BBC will be included.

And you will still have cost of the infrastructure to make it encrypted and charged for.

the BBC can put any crap on they like, they even show programs no one watches... I mean the BBC was a good idea when I was a kid and there were only a few channels, but its a service / tax thats no longer wanted or needed.

The mandate is not to be solely results driven. it is to include a wide range of programs, both regional and for selective groups like the deaf. Something commercial channels would not do. Channels like ITV can;'t even afford to do news with them thinking of axing there news services.
 
I've not paid for a TVL since I moved in (just over 5 years). I'm going to frame the 39 letters they have sent me threatining to take me to court :-)
 
I evaded TV license for over a year, they don't come to your place. Just keep saying that you don't watch it, what kind of evidence are they going to acquire for a judge to give them a warrant?

Lol, nothing but big bullies trying to intimidate people.
 
I evaded TV license for over a year, they don't come to your place. Just keep saying that you don't watch it, what kind of evidence are they going to acquire for a judge to give them a warrant?

It can be detected, though it is also true that it's harder to do with flat screen TVs and that most TV detector vans don't have any gear in at all and do work through the power of fear.

franco_22 said:
Lol, nothing but big bullies trying to intimidate people.

Um... it's the law and it pays for more than you think.
 
Right, because the UK is up there with technology infrastructure. Japan ,Sweden, Norway, USA, heck, USA and Canada haven't had satellites or aerials since the 90s, everything is cable.

Yet ironically ,those countries don't have a tv tax.
 
My old flat mate's Dad is one of those lower judges that hands out the fines for this type of stuff. People do get stung by it. Before I knew he done that for a living I gloated in his presence that we weren't going to pay the TV license for the year. I got promptly owned.
 
Back
Top Bottom