TV Licence Super Thread

[LuckyBenski]

I'm not so sure. I do not hate the BBC; it is just a service I do not use. There are legitimate grievances with its licensing policy, when it comes to limiting or restricting a consumer's ability to watch non-BBC live services, especially in the internet age where there is no reliance on legacy radio wave broadcasting and the associated costs of maintaining that.

I think it is the same end result but it's worth pointing out that it's still a TV license not a BBC license. That's kind of my main frustration with this thread.

Yes it seems unreasonable that the vast majority of TV licensing money goes to a single provider and not the rest. But that is still what it is; if the TV license was reduced by 30% and excluded the BBC, how many people would start paying it in order to then watch the other 100+ live broadcast channels? Not many I suspect.

I have real issues with how the fee is enforced and policed, that is completely unreasonable and often unhinged IMO. Not least because they only try to catch people out in areas with lots of non payers, so it's already targeting people unfairly. I also think the definition of live has been intentionally blurred to try and benefit the license funds unfairly.

But in the original and clear definition, where live TV means something that is being broadcast as a live channel in the terrestrial network (even if the viewer then views it over IP), it is quite clear what is and isn't under the jurisdiction of the license.

So really the majority of the issue is in how they try to apply the rules for the fee really. Which could easily be adjusted e.g. by letting the gov do it instead of the BBC, seeing as it IS a license for all TV channels not just BBC ones. Or as 413x suggests, just stop criminalising people for it and trust users to pay. I especially dislike the company BBC has chosen to enforce the fee - Capita are atrocious and the BBC's hands are dirty even if they leave Capita to do the work.

I don't have an issue with the funding model itself - the four main Public Service Providers are well regulated by Ofcom in terms of their responsibilities, and the funding going to the BBC while others have their own funding models, is fine. It is a good thing that we have multiple public service broadcasters who are on the hook from government to deliver valuable and balanced TV. BBC is part of a bigger, regulated system.

 

[darkgen]

I think it is the same end result but it's worth pointing out that it's still a TV license not a BBC license. That's kind of my main frustration with this thread.

Yet, the license exclusively funds BBC services, so it is a little disingenuous to attribute such costs to all services, terrestrial or otherwise, which offer live broadcasting. The concept of a license, in any form, seems antiquated in this day and age. On-demand and streaming services have obliterated that requirement in almost every setting, with the exception of the BBC.

I agree with most of the other points, which only further serve how out of date the BBC is with commercial providers.

 

[NetMan]

If you don’t watch the BBC or use live TV, just don’t pay..

My TV broke years ago and I didn't bother replacing it, at the time you could use iPlayer without a TV licence but I still paid for one.

Then I started using other streaming services, ditched iPlayer and cancelled my licence, back then it was cheaper to pay for Netflix and Prime than it was for a TV licence.

There are too many streaming services now it has diluted the content and made it more expensive, they have also added adverts which I think is taking the ****, any stream with adverts should be free to watch not require a subscription.

I just use Disney via a reduced price offer via my bank account and will dip into others like Apple TV now and again for a month or two when an offer comes up or when I see something I fancy watching.



More and more people aren't paying hence the stupid schemes they are dreaming up like adding it to the Council tax so people can't opt out.

BBC is actually a decent worldwide service,

Why should UK licence payers have to sub services for other parts of the world, most countries have got rid of licence fees; they also pay so called celeb's obscene amounts of money, cutting presenter and management fees to match average UK pay would save millions.

I do wonder how many people watching things like The Traitors (when it was all the rage) are actually paying their share.

Never watched it and have no interest in it or most of the drivel they make, sport doesn't really interest me either but if it did I'd watch it in the pub for the atmosphere. There was downhill skiing in the middle of the night on one of the channels which I liked but why watch it live at that those sort of times.

If they had a monthly sub I might actually pay for a month now and again for iPlayer but I'm not faffing around with paying then having to cancel again and fill in another I don't require a licence form so I'll stick to other on demand platforms. iPlayer was also pretty bad back then a series would end and 5 minutes later they would delete it from iPlayer I don't know if that has improved or if its still as bad for removing content.

 

[Vulcan]

What? I pay for the service, I enjoy the service.. if others don’t pay or like the service and its reduced or collapses then so be it..

But others are forced to pay for the service you use who may not use it. If someone wants to watch a live American news broadcast on Youtube, they still have to pay the BBC. If someone wants to watch live football on Amazon, they still have to pay the BBC. I don't care if the BBC exists or not, but the people who use it should be paying for it, and not people who watch competing media.

 

[shifty_uk]

Yeah, it’s arcane, I’m not disagreeing with that but you don’t need to pay for it, that’s my point. No one is subsidising my entertainment.

As for the impartiality, no organisation is perfect, you’re always going to have bad apples like tory kuenssberg but on the whole, it’s a cut above the rest.

The worldwide service part is more nuanced, we get access to news from across the globe by (largely)impartial folks doing good work on the ground. It’s also seen as a way of asserting soft power to help the UK maintain some form of democratic influence across the world. Whether that’s a good thing or should be subsidised by the licence fee is another matter.

In terms of the pricing, it equates to what, 15 quid per month? Annoyingly it’s more costly than a Netflix sub and I’d much rather see them going down the route of a similar subscription model but either way, it is what it is for now.

 

[NetMan]

but you don’t need to pay for it

The problem is they want to change that and add it to the council tax so no one can opt out.

And you do need to pay for it if you want to watch ITV, C4, SKY etc which is absurd.

 

[shifty_uk]

The problem is they want to change that and add it to the council tax so no one can opt out.

And you do need to pay for it if you want to watch ITV, C4, SKY etc which is absurd.

Is that likely to come to fruition though? I can’t imagine the nation will be happy about it.

And yes but only if you’re watching live TV. I don’t agree with it but is what it is.

 

[NetMan]

Is that likely to come to fruition though? I can’t imagine the nation will be happy about it.

Most still pay for a licence and they won't care it's only people that only use streaming services like me that will be ****** off.

And yes but only if you’re watching live TV. I don’t agree with it but is what it is.

If people never complain then nothing ever changes.

 

[shifty_uk]

Whether anyone’s interested or not.. I was completely oblivious to the fact that other countries around the world also pay a licence fee, some of which are taken via income tax:

How is TV funded around the world? - BBC News

How widespread is the TV licence around the world? And why is it changing in some countries?

www.bbc.com

How much does a TV licence cost in other countries?

Around two-thirds of Europe uses licences fees, but where do people pay the most?

www.irishtimes.com

On that basis, we don’t have it too badly when you consider we can opt out and don’t get bombarded with ads on the BBC(I think they’re unique in that sense)

 

[muon]

Take it via income tax. At least then it is per person, my biggest problem with it.

Even though I watch no license funded content, I'll be happy to pay for it.

 

[darkgen]

Take it via income tax. At least then it is per person, my biggest problem with it.

Even though I watch no license funded content, I'll be happy to pay for it.

Why? The government advertises on the commercial networks (from taxpayer money), That's enough. What exactly is being protected here? Unless it is a cynical way to increase yet more taxation, under the guise for a "national broadcaster", independent of government. Come on eh.

 

[muon]

Why? The government advertises on the commercial networks (from taxpayer money), That's enough. What exactly is being protected here? Unless it is a cynical way to increase yet more taxation, under the guise for a "national broadcaster", independent of government. Come on eh.

Everyone has to pretty much pay for it anyway (it's a tax on live tv already) and large households pay less per person than smaller ones.

It's silly that it isn't per user.

 

[Pottsey]

Everyone has to pretty much pay for it anyway (it's a tax on live tv already) and large households pay less per person than smaller ones.

It's silly that it isn't per user.

Everyone doesn't have to pretty much pay for it. Mostly only older people. Many younger people don't need or want it. A growing number of older people are moving away as well. Its wrong to force the licence fee into something like income tax and certainly not fair.

 

[JonRGV250]

Even though I watch no license funded content, I'll be happy to pay for it.

I'm guessing you work for the BBC?
Self preservation and all that.

 

[zo1d]

I haven't paid for license for years, as I don't watch any BBC broadcasts, in fact rather than me pay for a license they'd have to pay me to watch!

 

[muon]

Everyone doesn't have to pretty much pay for it. Mostly only older people. Many younger people don't need or want it. A growing number of older people are moving away as well. Its wrong to force the licence fee into something like income tax and certainly not fair.

I mean there is a big difference between not wanting it and legally having to pay for it.

Any live TV broadcast, such as sports you watch at home means you need to pay for a TV license.

Most young people I know, pay for it. They tend to live in large households (house shares) anyway, so the cost per person is quite low.

 

[SonicSW20]

I don't need to pay it, and I wouldn't pay it even if I needed to. **** Capita.

 

[GIBURROWS]

Take it via income tax. At least then it is per person, my biggest problem with it.

Even though I watch no license funded content, I'll be happy to pay for it.

Would you be happy to pay my share as well.

 

[Pottsey]

I mean there is a big difference between not wanting it and legally having to pay for it.

Any live TV broadcast, such as sports you watch at home means you need to pay for a TV license.

Most young people I know, pay for it. They tend to live in large households (house shares) anyway, so the cost per person is quite low.

There is also a big difference between not needing it and being forced into paying it which is what you come across as wanting. For many and a growing number of people TV's are antiquated its not how we consume our main media these days. Many of us don't even have TV's and a growing number who do have TV don't watch or use Live TV. Most people I know only use a TV for something like a games consoles or Netflix not for watching live TV.

Why should the millions of us that don't watch live TV many of which don't even own TV's and that number for both is growing fast year on year be forced into paying for an old fashioned and antiquated BBC that is surplus to requirements? Its morally wrong to force that on us. If people want it let them pay for it but don't force it on millions of people. What's next your going to force millions of people without a car to pay car tax!

 

[Scort]

I mean there is a big difference between not wanting it and legally having to pay for it.

Any live TV broadcast, such as sports you watch at home means you need to pay for a TV license.

Most young people I know, pay for it. They tend to live in large households (house shares) anyway, so the cost per person is quite low.

We've not had a need for a license for about 8 years now - don't watch anything live on any service, don't feel like we're missing out on anything either - if we have a need for a bit of TV then we will use the non-BBC catch-up services.

Personally I wouldn't be happy to pay for a service I do not need or use - but if you are, then you do you... but hopefully there'll be a revolt if they attempt to tack it onto our bills.