Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

b0rn2sk8 said:
It is but it’s basically a necessity if you want to watch some live TV. Steaming services are good but they are not the be all and end all of media.

The BBC also puts out some fantastic ad-free content across all its platforms, be that TV, radio or it’s website which is why I don’t begrudge paying for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true if you use it. I just don't have the time, so the cheapest Netflix is all i use (an hour at most per day), which appears to be the one most are dropping. If it were £8 then i'd get a licence, but with phone and broadband it just adds up quick.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
It is but it’s basically a necessity if you want to watch some live TV. Steaming services are good but they are not the be all and end all of media.

The BBC also puts out some fantastic ad-free content across all its platforms, be that TV, radio or it’s website which is why I don’t begrudge paying for it.
Click to expand...

Each to own but as soon as I dropped Sky I dropped the TV licence too and cut out all live TV. The value personally isn't there.

Haven't listened to radio in a decade, don't use their website, and the TV has maybe a few good shows a year so just watch at parents.

The TV licence at £13 a month is same cost as Prime and Disney+ with a lot less to watch especially if your a family and want access to children's TV stuff. Add in no cost for YT with adverts and there just enough content out there tbh without being forced to have a licence.

And tbh why should I need to pay a licence to have Sky or watch non BBC elements. Its not through an aerial or their infrastructure and yet am forced to do so, so yeah it's partially in protest. Taking away pensioners free licence, claiming they'd need to charge £19.99 to cover their costs if they went subscription and yet that would make them by far the most expensive sub service available.

If it was same price as Prime or Disney at £79 I could see some value. There is none from them.
 
Yikes, I seemed to have touched a bit of a nerve there!

Have you considered that running a live public service broadcast network for the benefit of everyone takes a fair amount of cash?

I’d also suggest that for the money, the BBC puts out an order of magnitude more content than prime, Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and HBO combined each week across all its platforms. Streaming services put out very little in the way of new content and rely on their back catalogues to add value.

I also find it incredibly hard to believe that you or your family haven’t benefitted from any BBC services. I’m just not buying it.

The taking away of free licences for pensioners was an obvious stitch up by the government, they stopped proving the funding to the BBC to cover that cost. You really any use that as an anti BBC argument.

Commercialising the BBC will likely strip away what makes it world renowned for what it does. The complete lack of commercial interests and general lack of political influence in the BBC make it what it is.

Take that away and we will end up with something more akin to what the US has which is utter tripe. Hell if the government had its way, the BBC would be more like RT.

Ultimately the TV licence is a stealth tax, but it’s a steal tax worth paying to have an independent public service broadcaster for the benefit of the UK.

I’d even go as far as saying it should be mandatory for every household to be collected via counsel tax, that would cut the cost a smidge and all the admin needed to administer the TV licence.
 
I totally disagree with TV licensing being banded into CT.

The sheer amount of cash waste of expensive celebs, excessive low quality trash etc should not be forced. Especially with costs like today.

But I see it comimg. BBC is a dinosaur that needs to die or be a tax. I'd rather it die.
It had its place. But like blockbuster it's time to go.

I would reluctantly accept a cut down "news only" service on radio/Web but not a tax to pay for entertainment. Because entertainment it is not.

Entertainment is down to taste. And should not be propped up by tax. If it isn't commercially viable its time to die.


It costs more than netflix. It's more than any streaming service. And it's just not worth it.
 
413x said:
I totally disagree with TV licensing being banded into CT.

The sheer amount of cash waste of expensive celebs, excessive low quality trash etc should not be forced. Especially with costs like today.

But I see it comimg. BBC is a dinosaur that needs to die or be a tax. I'd rather it die.
It had its place. But like blockbuster it's time to go.

I would reluctantly accept a cut down "news only" service on radio/Web but not a tax to pay for entertainment. Because entertainment it is not.

Entertainment is down to taste. And should not be propped up by tax. If it isn't commercially viable its time to die.


It costs more than netflix. It's more than any streaming service. And it's just not worth it.
Click to expand...
Since when does BBC cost more than netflix....
 
Just ordered the tesco D+ offer.
Thanks whoever mentioned it.

Good value that. Can probably bin netflix for 6 months and watch everything we want on Disney for 6.
 
Maybe the BBC could make some additional money by allowing ads on entertainment shows only. Keep the news programmes and wildlife documentaries ad free and paid for by the license, and allow ads on sports and entertainment shows.
 
413x said:
Since maths

159 a year for BBC

11 a month for netflix (standard)
11ppm*12 months=132 a year
Click to expand...

I agree with the maths and the BBC is just a part of the TV licence as the TV licence allows you to watch "Live" TV as well. So you can't watch or record ANY live TV as well as anything live on a streaming service.

This gets VERY difficult for them to enforce but watch your friend on YouTube streaming live? Fine! (as in you pay a fine!). Watch someone on Facebook doing that live streaming stuff, Fine! (pay them again!). You could argue they're not programmes if they're your actual real life friends but if they aren't and they're people making money from the streaming then it could be considered a "live programme" and you will be fined.

The BBC is a part of the TV licence but if you factor in the recording side and the live streaming side of ANY platform then the cost of the BBC side is lowered. By how much I don't know but it must be.

You'd probably get away with it for sure but you would be breaking the law when you did.
 
Last edited:
danlightbulb said:
Maybe the BBC could make some additional money by allowing ads on entertainment shows only. Keep the news programmes and wildlife documentaries ad free and paid for by the license, and allow ads on sports and entertainment shows.
Click to expand...

Or, just quoting myself here, how about rejigging the channel structure so that there is a free to air news channel (including all the politics shows), and a free to air documentary channel, and then separate sports and entertainment channels with ads. Replacing the existing BBC1,2,3 and 4.


Nemiyen said:
the BBC is just a part of the TV licence as the TV licence allows you to watch "Live" TV as well.
Click to expand...

Is this a relic of the transmission infrastructure or something? Like that part of the license fee used to (or maybe still does) go towards the transmission towers?
 
danlightbulb said:
Is this a relic of the transmission infrastructure or something? Like that part of the license fee used to (or maybe still does) go towards the transmission towers?
Click to expand...

Not sure as I just got it straight from the TV licencing website so I'm hoping it is correct!

You can cancel your licence if you no longer:

  • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
  • watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
  • download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer.
They may be doing a VW emmisions scandal and lying to us but I'm hoping it is right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom