TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
The license fee funds more than just TV anyway. TV has just been used as a notional way to charge it.

None of you use BBC radio or BBC websites?

It's fine, it can be renamed to BBC funding if it irks people so much.

Also how many of you skip watching the world cup or olympics in your household?
 
Last edited:
muon said:
The license fee funds more than just TV anyway. TV has just been used as a notional way to charge it.
Click to expand...

then break it up, have a fee to run and maintain the infrastructure and the commercial section raises money else where
muon said:
None of you use BBC radio or BBC websites?
Click to expand...

again in this day and age and DAB/Internet radio i can find radio sites more suited to my needs, same with web sites
muon said:
Also how many of you skip watching the world cup or olympics in your household?
Click to expand...

so your assuming we all big sports fans ?, couldn't pay me enough to watch football, or the Olympics, best thing ever to happen Olympics/sport was when there was a strike and they showed V instead,
 
LuckyBenski said:
I was thinking the same... I think this thread has just become the I hate the BBC thread. Repeated links to GB News says a lot.
Click to expand...

Not completely. I'm fine with the current model.
I just don't want to be forced to pay.

I don't agree with not being able to watch live TV at all if you don't pay TV licence... But personally I'm OK with that too.
 
muon said:
The license fee funds more than just TV anyway. TV has just been used as a notional way to charge it.

None of you use BBC radio or BBC websites?

It's fine, it can be renamed to BBC funding if it irks people so much.

Also how many of you skip watching the world cup or olympics in your household?
Click to expand...

The vast vast majority is for TV.

If they split out the fee for TV and core I wouldn't mind paying the core even though I don't listen to the radio either.

We also don't watch any live sport. Especially not the world Cup... Eww! :D
 
Last edited:
NetMan said:
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.


If people never complain then nothing ever changes.
Click to expand...

Yep my view too.
I'd put money on it happening. I bet I could go waaaay back on this thread to where I said I think this will end up in council tax.

Liklihood grows all the time.
 
muon said:
The license fee funds more than just TV anyway. TV has just been used as a notional way to charge it.

None of you use BBC radio or BBC websites?

It's fine, it can be renamed to BBC funding if it irks people so much.

Also how many of you skip watching the world cup or olympics in your household?
Click to expand...
I've never seen anything mentioned about the license fee, other than the BBC and Capita, both of whom I assume take the lions share.

I don't use any BBC services - there seems to have been so many instances where their news website shows a bias, which others have noticed - so I've got no need for a curated news source who wish to push one side of views over another (which I feel is the complete opposite of what a news service should be). And as for the radio, there are plenty of other stations I can access, but nine times out of ten, I'll listen to my own music.

Call it what they want, so long as it is optional, I'll have no issues. But trying to force my household to pay for services I do not need or use, is out of order imo.

I don't follow any sports so you can count me as skipping these things
 
muon said:
The license fee funds more than just TV anyway. TV has just been used as a notional way to charge it.

None of you use BBC radio or BBC websites?

It's fine, it can be renamed to BBC funding if it irks people so much.

Also how many of you skip watching the world cup or olympics in your household?
Click to expand...
Its funds nothing that's really that useful or essential for me. No I don't use BBC radio or websites. There is no reason why BBC should get special treatment and automatic funding from everyone. Let them stand on there own two feet. Renaming it BBC funding doesn't solve anything its still wrong to force us to pay them. We skip the World cup but not Olympics which we don't keep track of on live TV as that's not how many people today consume media these days.

BBC Funding should be optional and only apply to those that use the BBC services. That is the only fair system.
 
if bbc has to produce self-censored/partial material like netflix/amazon - then maybe it should be privatized

Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grave breaches of international law.

"This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces," said Louisa Compton, Channel 4's Head of News and Current Affairs. "It exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism," she added, announcing the move on Saturday.

Produced by Basement Films and originally commissioned by the BBC—before it was dropped—the film was later reviewed, verified and approved by Channel 4 following rigorous editorial checks.
Click to expand...
 
Pottsey said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yep the only people I know who watch broadcast TV are 60+ now. Or they have sky, so are forced to fund the BBC even though they don't watch it.

What happens when viewer number fall so low that it's just not viable, will they still just keep taking tax money? At that point it's just existing just to pay huge wages to a few people.

It needs breaking up in to seperate companies and they can fund themselves or to out of business.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty hilarious news article for all the wrong (or maybe right) reasons.
www.theguardian.com

Thousands of BBC jobs at risk as broadcaster considers major outsourcing drive

Exclusive: BBC understood to be speaking to US tech giants as it desperately seeks cost savings
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
In effect, outsourcing technical positions to other countries (such as the US, highlighted in the article) means that UK TV license fee payers indirectly supporting those economies with the added bonus of depriving the UK exchequer of much needed income tax revenue!
 
I've been off the BBC for about 6 months again, just miss some live TV sometimes, BBC News and Weather apps still work. Suckers. I gladly pay for Guardian for website and app.

The BBC are too slow to change, things are reviewed every decade, they should maybe review that (next decade), if they had a way to turn on live TV / iPlayer every now and then for a small charge that would be better for me, but it's a year or nothing I'm out.
 
so bbc seems to have been exonerated on the Gaza programme - should have mentioned boys relationship , otherwise it was impartial.
so lisa nandy and all her BS inflammatory parliamentary noise about critical failures ... maybe she should be fired

The BBC programme Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone breached one of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on accuracy, by failing to disclose information about the child narrator’s father’s position within the Hamas-run government, a report published today finds.

The Review finds no other breaches of the Editorial Guidelines, including any breaches of impartiality, and no evidence that outside interests “inappropriately impacted on the programme". It added: “that careful consideration of the requirements of due impartiality was undertaken in this project given the highly contested nature of the subject matter.”
Click to expand...
 
darkgen said:
This is a pretty hilarious news article for all the wrong (or maybe right) reasons.
www.theguardian.com

Thousands of BBC jobs at risk as broadcaster considers major outsourcing drive

Exclusive: BBC understood to be speaking to US tech giants as it desperately seeks cost savings
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
In effect, outsourcing technical positions to other countries (such as the US, highlighted in the article) means that UK TV license fee payers indirectly supporting those economies with the added bonus of depriving the UK exchequer of much needed income tax revenue!
Click to expand...

So they want to sell it off AND tax us for it? Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do both :P

CrimsonAvenger said:
Given the lack of success with other government owned firms that have been privatized I'd rather it didn't. All we've seen is shareholder pay outs and billions of debt ala Water companies.
Click to expand...

Yea but the BBC isn't a vital service, or even used by this generation.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
So they want to sell it off AND tax us for it? Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do both :P
Click to expand...
I'd be stunned if such an action were allowed under the BBC Charter. Even more so, if the mood music really is to roll the TV licence into council tax. Then again, we've sold all our major UK infrastructure and institutions to the highest (foreign) bidder! Why not TV too.
 
big change on freeview licensing - IP/internet delivery only on some HD channels - first saw it this evening, big brother

i-need-to-be-connected-to-the-net.2533430/#post-33041964
The reason you're now seeing an internet-related error for ITV HD and Channel 4 HD—despite having watched them over Freeview before—is due to a recent technical change in how these channels are delivered.

Until recently, ITV1 HD (channel 103) and Channel 4 HD (channel 104) were broadcast over the air via DVB-T2, meaning you could receive them with just an aerial. But now:

Some regions have switched these HD channels to IP delivery—meaning they’re streamed over the internet instead of broadcast via aerial.
This shift is part of a broader move by Freeview and broadcasters toward hybrid delivery, combining aerial and broadband sources.

You can still get the SD versions (like ITV1 on channel 3 or Channel 4 on channel 4), which are still broadcast over the air.

There’s also a technical twist. Freeview IP channels are delivered using one of two standards:

Standard Description Compatibility Issue
MHEG Older format used for interactive services Some newer TVs no longer support this
HbbTV Newer format used for Freeview Play and smart TVs Some older TVs don’t support this

Now, my TV is connected to the internet via Ethernet cable to my hub, however my Freeview box (Manhattan) isn't. I did check to see if it had an Ethernet port, and it does, so that may be one solution. Another solution is to buy a Firestick.
Click to expand...
 
jpaul said:
big change on freeview licensing - IP/internet delivery only on some HD channels - first saw it this evening, big brother

Click to expand...
Link needs formatting properly to work.

This sounds very off to me - I'm not aware of any changes to how we deliver primary channels on Freeview. Freely has some changes but that is only brand new TVs. Unfortunately that avforums thread is muddied by chatGPT bull****.

The MHEG vs HbbTV differentiation is slightly bizarre, but I guess ITV/C4 need to cover all bases. However, this suggests anyone without a smart device and internet connection have just lost major channels? Incredibly, incredibly unlikely.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom