BBC licence fee could be means tested everyone pays regardless of whether or not they own a telev

linktoinsanity · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:31

Another TV license thread. Another thread full of people who want to show off to all their forum "buddies" that they don't like paying "the big evil man" and don't pay it.

If you have equipment capable of receiving Live TV, you have to pay a TV license. This does not include a computer with a web browser unless you use it to watch live TV.

Source 1: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Note the link on that site for those who don't need a TV license. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Sat...goBlobs&blobwhere=1370006210037&ssbinary=true

Even the money saving experts say you need a license as well.

Source 2: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence

Personally, if I own a TV and/or watch Live TV I will pay a TV license. I'm sure in the future there is an unlikely chance I will move onto streaming from Netflix/NOWTV only and if that happens then I will not. I like several programs the BBC produces/has produced in the past and therefore do not see what the issue was in paying the license.

xs2man · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:33

linktoinsanity said:
Another TV license thread. Another thread full of people who want to show off to all their forum "buddies" that they don't like paying "the big evil man" and don't pay it.

If you have equipment capable of receiving Live TV, you have to pay a TV license. This does not include a computer with a web browser unless you use it to watch live TV.

Source 1: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Note the link on that site for those who don't need a TV license. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Sat...goBlobs&blobwhere=1370006210037&ssbinary=true

Even the money saving experts say you need a license as well.

Source 2: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence

Personally, if I own a TV and/or watch Live TV I will pay a TV license. I'm sure in the future there is an unlikely chance I will move onto streaming from Netflix/NOWTV only and if that happens then I will not. I like several programs the BBC produces/has produced in the past and therefore do not see what the issue was in paying the license.

From your first link :

You need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device.

It's not the capability of doing so, but the actual watching of live TV that requires the license.

So your first sentence there, is just a rant, the second however, where you try to come out with fact based reasoning, is inaccurate. The rest I couldn't be bothered reading, as you made two fatal errors in the first two sentences.

Brenn47 · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:34

ITV has about 5000 staff .. BBC about 28000.

One great big BBC gravy train that the BBC are desperate to keep the public funding, pretty much sums it up.

Glaucus · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:35

linktoinsanity said:
Another TV license thread. Another thread full of people who want to show off to all their forum "buddies" that they don't like paying "the big evil man" and don't pay it.

If you have equipment capable of receiving Live TV, you have to pay a TV license. This does not include a computer with a web browser unless you use it to watch live TV.

Source 1: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Note the link on that site for those who don't need a TV license. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Sat...goBlobs&blobwhere=1370006210037&ssbinary=true

Even the money saving experts say you need a license as well.

Source 2: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence

Personally, if I own a TV and/or watch Live TV I will pay a TV license. I'm sure in the future there is an unlikely chance I will move onto streaming from Netflix/NOWTV only and if that happens then I will not. I like several programs the BBC produces/has produced in the past and therefore do not see what the issue was in paying the license.

No you don't. The license is only required for watching or recording live TV.
Owning the equipment is perfectly legal without the license as the website says.

HungryHippos · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:36

linktoinsanity said:
Another TV license thread. Another thread full of people who want to show off to all their forum "buddies" that they don't like paying "the big evil man" and don't pay it.

If you have equipment capable of receiving Live TV, you have to pay a TV license. This does not include a computer with a web browser unless you use it to watch live TV.

Source 1: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Note the link on that site for those who don't need a TV license. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Sat...goBlobs&blobwhere=1370006210037&ssbinary=true

Even the money saving experts say you need a license as well.

Source 2: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence

Personally, if I own a TV and/or watch Live TV I will pay a TV license. I'm sure in the future there is an unlikely chance I will move onto streaming from Netflix/NOWTV only and if that happens then I will not. I like several programs the BBC produces/has produced in the past and therefore do not see what the issue was in paying the license.

Heya Link,

The source 1 link you sent over contradicts what you said, you can have a TV with just a console attached, you don't need to pay a licence then.

You quite literally only need a licence if you "watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or live on an online TV service". Just owning a tv isn't enough to warrant paying for licence.

Jones · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:37

Moses said:
I just find it hard to believe there hasn't been at least one thing he's watched live in three years. Be it a big sporting event/moment, a film/tv programme he wanted to watch, whatever. I realise people watch stuff on demand a lot, but I still find it hard to believe live TV hasn't happened once.

Not in my experience. Weird there are differing experiences on that...

Not only do I not watch live TV I don't watch any TV at all. If I want to watch a sporting event I would go to the pub or a friends house for the UFC.

Abraham · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:48

Brenn47 said:
ITV has about 5000 staff .. BBC about 28000.

One great big BBC gravy train that the BBC are desperate to keep the public funding, pretty much sums it up.

The BBC offers significantly more than 5 times the content of ITV, what a ridiculous comparison. The BBC not only has 6 Channels of largely original content (or 4 if you exclude the timesplits (3/CBBC, 4/CBeebies)) of TV plus News, Alba etc, but also 59 radio stations, and content from all of those is available on iPlayer. That's without touching BBC Worldwide which is self funding.

arknor · 17 Jul 2015 at 16:58

bbc worldwide does it pay the bbc the going rate for programmes it airs and makes a TRUE profit? or is the only profit because all the programmes are already paid for by the UK

wheres all the money from topgear , teletubbies , drwho etc?

does it go straight to production companies owned by people like clarkson and not the bbc?

Werewolf · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:00

Brenn47 said:
ITV has about 5000 staff .. BBC about 28000.

One great big BBC gravy train that the BBC are desperate to keep the public funding, pretty much sums it up.

ITV does far less in house though.

IIRC ITV buys in most of it's content from outside production houses.
ITV does not have an internal news or weather department (they subcontract ITN for that, and it's a far smaller output than the BBC).
ITV does no local radio.
I don't think it does much/any politics either.

It also does nothing like as much new content on it's channels.

Which means that ITV the broadcaster is largely the channel management (admin, legal, commissioning, advertising sales and some archiving).

Whilst the BBC actually produces over 50% of it's content in house, operates a news gathering organisation that is spread across the world, has news monitoring (a government mandated operation), has it's own production facilities, etc.

It's surprising how when you don't do half the stuff in house you need less staff.

Badtez101 · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:09

Werewolf still in here?

Werewolf · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:09

arknor said:
bbc worldwide does it pay the bbc the going rate for programmes it airs and makes a TRUE profit? or is the only profit because all the programmes are already paid for by the UK

wheres all the money from topgear , teletubbies , drwho etc?

does it go straight to production companies owned by people like clarkson and not the bbc?

BBC:WW has to pay the market rate for content.
It would be against EU law to do otherwise and the BBC actually has to employ a bunch of people to do the bargaining for the sales to it (and offer to other companies).
If they didn't the various other distributors would very very quickly make a fuss about it.

From what I remember the sales to BBC:WW bring in something like 800 million a year for the BBC, and the profit that BBC:WW makes after it's costs (including paying the BBC for the content it sells abroad) is something like £200 million a year.

The likes of Doctor Who largely pay for themselves and effectively subsidise a lot of the other more niche or less popular programming.

There was some report a few years back by one of the political parties that worked out that if the BBC were to drop the likes of Doctor Who, Strictly etc it would only save a few pounds per household but decimate the popular content (as it's the news, politics, current affairs programming that actually costs the most per usable hour, as unlike drama and comedy etc you can't really do a repeat news bulletin a week later, let alone a year later).

Badtez101 · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:12

i dont know how to message people could werewolf help me with something please?

Badtez101 · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:15

Aah just seen i can post new threads so will do it in general discussion and hope it gets seen.

Pottsey · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:16

SPG said:
“The BBC is about everyone not just what some of your selfish postings seem to indicate. So i fully agree EVERYONE (apart from pensioners) should be paying for it.”

That is so wrong on so many levels. Forcing people to pay for something they don’t use is wrong. BBC is not about everyone in fact I would go as far to say BBC is a waste of time for many people. One can even argue its being selfish to have everyone pay for something you want and they do not want.

daz · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:24

Werewolf said:
There was some report a few years back by one of the political parties that worked out that if the BBC were to drop the likes of Doctor Who, Strictly etc it would only save a few pounds per household but decimate the popular content (as it's the news, politics, current affairs programming that actually costs the most per usable hour, as unlike drama and comedy etc you can't really do a repeat news bulletin a week later, let alone a year later).

All of those things are fair enough - but what about sports rights? Should the BBC be competing commercially to show sports that would otherwise get picked up ITV or someone else?

Something like MoTD, which I love - and is/was much better than the ITV equivalent - is probably difficult to justify for a public service broadcaster, from a licensing fee perspective. Judging from a quick Google, these rights alone cost £40m-£50m per year, and that's without the associated costs of the actual broadcasting - the pundits, the cameramen, editing and so on.

According to this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2014/executive/finances/licence_fee.html) it costs the BBC £100m a year just to enforce the license fee!

That's £100m that could be spent on actual programming, were the BBC to move to a subscription model; because you'd simply turn people off if they didn't pay. I think there is definitely an argument for a free 'core' BBC with additional programming being subscription based.

spoffle · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:29

easyrider said:
All you lot talking about Netflix...it's good but not that good...a lot of the stuff is naff...

We need the BBC ...it's part of our culture...we need public service broadcasting....we need cutting edge documentaries...or we can watch worlds worst weather on channel 5

As for garbage like the voice ..it has to compete with Itv....that's it...strictly may not be your cup of tea but it's massive...

I would rather have a few shows I hate on the BBC that I don't have to watch than an itv model using adverts ...were content is predominately made for profit.

Sky is ******* ***** and yet people are willing to pay 50 quid plus per month.....I ditched sky and will never go back....sky users are chumps paying for TV twice !!!!!

Freesat is where it's at...

The cost of the BBC and it's model is outdated of course due to the Internet...and fragmented consumption leading to personal narrowcasting....I predicted this in a university essay a decade ago and got a 1st so I know what I'm talking about.

I'll still keep subbed to this thread....as the chumps are coming out of the woodwork with daft commends and it's entertaining me on my day off having morning coffee.

I don't watch any live TV at all, I don't consume any BBC content, why should I pay anything towards it if I'm not interested in anything it has to offer?

You seem to be suggesting that everyone has a duty to support the BBC whether they make use of it or not.

Meladath · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:34

How can this even be considered. What a complete load of crap.

I haven't watched a TV in 5 years. You know why? It's ****ING ****. Smart plan BBC, less people are watching archaic out of date dying technology, force everyone to pay for it even if they don't use it because you don't want to go out of business.

I'm actually disgusted. Might even write a letter.

Abraham · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:34

daz said:
According to this link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2014/executive/finances/licence_fee.html) it costs the BBC £100m a year just to enforce the license fee!

That's £100m that could be spent on actual programming, were the BBC to move to a subscription model; because you'd simply turn people off if they didn't pay. I think there is definitely an argument for a free 'core' BBC with additional programming being subscription based.

I'd use the same argument to say this is why it should just be a flat fee levied on any property owner/occupier. There's plenty of evidence in this thread of the people who consume BBC content but by only doing it through catch up aren't currently covered by the licence fee, and the licence enforcement is a joke, so could just be got rid of. To simplify it more it could just be funded from the Tax Coffers, but that's a more complex argument to have, and removes the semblance of separation they're meant to have from the government.

leaskovski · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:35

spoffle said:
I don't watch any live TV at all, I don't consume any BBC content, why should I pay anything towards it if I'm not interested in anything it has to offer?

You seem to be suggesting that everyone has a duty to support the BBC whether they make use of it or not.

Why should you pay the same amount of council tax as someone living in the same sort of house but has kids going to school?

Abraham · 17 Jul 2015 at 17:36

Meladath said:
How can this even be considered. What a complete load of crap.

I haven't watched a TV in 5 years. You know why? It's ****ING ****. Smart plan BBC, less people are watching archaic out of date dying technology, force everyone to pay for it even if they don't use it because you don't want to go out of business.

It's because most of those people who "dont use it" do actually use BBC funded content, be that iPlayer, the radio, the news site. I've not used a hospital in 15 years, but I don't begrudge funding them.