BBC license fee proposals...

SDK^ said:
All this fuss over £145, just pay it and stop being silly.
Click to expand...

£145 is £145...not everyone's loaded you know. :p

Stretch said:
Anyone who buys a TV in the UK has their personal details passed on to the TV licensing authority. If you don't have a TV licences on record, they send you letters (repeatedly) asking you to prove why you don't need one. The assumption is everyone should pay the licence fee.
Click to expand...

Well their assumption is wrong,Just because you buy a TV doesn't mean you intend to use it to watch their crap..i ONLY use my TV for Games console,DVD/Blu-ray.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
I mean other than iPlayer, i.e. using Netflix, Prime and the like would also require a license. Lets face it, there are going to be more and more people ditching Sky/Virgin and live TV type setups as younger generations setup home.
Click to expand...

:confused: You already need a license (it's called a subscription) for Netflix and Prime.
 
Nevakonaza said:
£145 is £145...not everyone's loaded you know. :p



Well their assumption is wrong,Just because you buy a TV doesn't mean you intend to use it to watch their crap..i ONLY use my TV for Games console,DVD/Blu-ray.
Click to expand...

Their assumption is pretty accurate. Most people who buy a TV go on to watch live TV services through it.
 
Basher said:
:confused: You already need a license (it's called a subscription) for Netflix and Prime.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the BBC state that simply watching ANY live TV requires a license regardless of whether that includes any BBC content. Who's to say they couldn't change the requirements from 'Any live TV', to include 'Any on demand TV'?
 
Last edited:
Basher said:
Their assumption is pretty accurate. Most people who buy a TV go on to watch live TV services through it.
Click to expand...

Well their assumption may have been that, but they have changed their tune and now coming after the many that do not watch live TV.

Also, why should you have to have a TV license (BBC tax) to watch live football on BT Sport for example? (For the sake of argument, watching it through the internet not transmitters.) What does the BBC have to do with that?
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Sure, but the BBC state that simply watching ANY live TV requires a license regardless of whether that includes any BBC content. Who's to say they couldn't change the requirements from 'Any live TV', to include 'Any on demand TV'?
Click to expand...

The government are to say...

They've set the charter for the next 11 years, the BBC has no say in that.
 
do_ron_ron said:
For the modern person TV is widely used and to get it Transmitters need to be there or upgraded to carry the latest formats etc so why should you not pay for it?
Click to expand...
And yet cord cutting continues to be on the increase year after year as people switch to alternatives like Netflix + Amazon

Last time I checked the BBC had nothing to do with internet infrastructure.

£145 is nothing to most people, but the principle and entire foundation of the BBC is so old fashioned that its slow inevitable death has to be constantly propped up by the government at citizens expense.

Make the ****ing thing subscription only already and then the BBC will really see who will pay for their limited tv shows, and those that lement how great and hallowed the BBC is can get their fix without annoying the rest of us.
 
I don't currently have a license, as I only watch the occasional program on iplayer catchup.

I've heard that there may be some sort of provision for people like me, so I'll wait for that to be announced. If there is no provision, then I'll simply not watch any terrestrial or iplayer TV and stick to Netflix et al.
 
Moving into my first house soon and I don't intend on paying the license.

I used to watch Top Gear and Apprentice on live TV. If they're covering iPlayer with the license then I'll just not watch apprentice and sign up to Amazon Prime for "The Grand Tour".
 
dowie said:
And yet most of the license few money isn't spent on transmitters but content that isn't any different to commercial broadcasters.
Click to expand...
Except for all the content that is different, or that the other broadcasters wouldn't touch with a bargepole until the BBC showed that there was in fact an audience for it (at which point the other broadcasters scrabble around for a poor imitation).

Strictly Come Dancing, The Great British Bake Off, Life on Mars to name but three, all things that the likes of ITV wouldn't have touched, or were offered and turned down (IIRC TGBBO was turned down by pretty much every broadcaster).

R4 has absolutely no equivilent on commercial radio, even R1 doesn't as every proper study of the output has shown that it plays far more different tracks from different artists than any of the commercial stations (something like several thousand tracks from hundreds of performers in a month compared to something like ~500 tracks from about 100 performers for Heart or Capital).
 
As if strictly couldn't be funded commercially... Come off it, just because another broadcaster passed on it doesn't mean it wouldn't be commercially viable.
 
I am sure most complainers on here are young <40, single men or half of a couple. Factor in family, young children, older people and people who do not use the internet as an entertainment medium and the licence fee vs subscription makes a lot of sense. People who only want the four main channels and possibly some freeview and the kids channels.
 
glen8 said:
The licence fee is STILL required if you watch Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview or Freesat.
Click to expand...

True but the BBC funds some of the R&D and tech that goes into the platforms that are used by other (UK) broadcasters; small percentage of the licence fee i know but still.

However, there's an argument for the BBC going to a subscription-like model but you couldn't cover entirety of the BBC with it - FM/DAB subscription technology doesn't exist* and what would you do with regards to R&D/technology? It's a vital area and other broadcasters don't invest anywhere near what the BBC does (ITV/C4 catch-up services highlight that; they barely offer watchable SD streams).

* Advertising would be the only real option but there's a whole host of reasons why that's a bad idea.
 
Don't care. Still won't pay for a TV license.

I don't need a license for my toaster, so i'm not buying one for my television set. Simple as that.

I don't even have the aerial connected and i'm not paying for iPlayer.

Do I need a TV license to stream iPlayer on my mobile phone over 4G? Really lol

Good luck enforcing that guys.
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
Don't care. Still won't pay for a TV license.

I don't need a license for my toaster, so i'm not buying one for my television set. Simple as that.

I don't even have the aerial connected and i'm not paying for iPlayer.

Do I need a TV license to stream iPlayer on my mobile phone over 4G? Really lol

Good luck enforcing that guys.
Click to expand...

Technically, yes. :p

I can see why it is also being applied to on demand services though, as someone else said, the programs aren't free, so just because you aren't watching them live doesn't suddenly negate the fact people need to get paid :p
 
dowie said:
And yet most of the license few money isn't spent on transmitters but content that isn't any different to commercial broadcasters.
Click to expand...

Public Service Broadcasts. As to how the TV license money is spent

A standard colour TV Licence costs £145.50 – the equivalent of £12.13 per month or just under 40p per day.

The fee you pay provides a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you. In addition to funding BBC programmes and services, a proportion of the licence fee contributes to the costs of rolling out broadband to the UK population and funding Welsh Language TV channel S4C and local TV channels. This was agreed with the government as part of the 2010 licence fee settlement.

The licence fee allows the BBC's UK services to remain free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest.
Click to expand...

You get, for example, a Welsh channel and a Gaelic channel. You would never get a commercial company providing them without a Govt grant so the people end up paying for it either way. Personally, not having progs broken up by commercial breaks is worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom