With almost of of that going back to the BBC, minus a few million here and there for things like broadband rollout.
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
Do you watch or record programmes as they're broadcast or use BBC iPlayer?
Soldato
It is fact that the BBC gets 86% and it is even on the TV licence website itself. Sorry but you are wrong.
Last edited:
Soldato
It all goes to the government.
Contrary to the theme of this thread it's not just BBC, not just TV, and the entire budget doesn't get blown on EastEnders.
Sorry but it goes to the government and as stated they return 86% to the BBC directly! Its even in what you posted as proof.
Last edited:
How is @Dirk Diggler wrong to say the TV Licence funds more than the BBC when 17% of it goes elsewhere?
Soldato
It goes to the government. Not to the other channels or live TV services otherwise. At no point for instance does it go to say Portugal for their live TV if I watch it via YT. It isn't paying to the alternative content options.
It goes to the BBC for the large majority and no other TV service or broadcaster gets any funds from it. Its a government tax to run the license and have the TV licence department.
Edit: also are you otherwise suggesting that all other world wise live services from all nations is only 14% then of a fee. If it wasn't a BBC fee then it should be split at minimum for all UK live broadcasters and then should not include live international broadcasters.
Why should I pay the government/BBC to watch live abroad TV shows via YT as example? I pay my broadband company my data usage and use their service to watch it so that is whom is footing the bill for the data usage and that is it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,829
I cancelled my TV licence over a year ago and joined a streaming service instead. I don't know why I didn't do it sooner.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
Put adds in it or subscribe for no adds.
Soldato
Yeah I am aware but it's rubbish. You are taking relative small % and suggesting that BBC is even worth 86% of the fee and then at £11.36 a month then is still too much. Put the remaining £1.85 a month into the council tax for that and be done with it and drop the licence fee.
Because broadband shouldn't be part of a TV licence. Sorry but you pulling at stupid concepts. With that I also shouldn't be covering Welsh language TV or S4C.
That leave local TV channels and broadband. If you broke the 14% by those 4 things would mean that 7% should be something that is paid for by all on average.
That puts what should be thus mandatory then and moved to the council tax to about 93p a month. I'd be fine with that for the broadband which I take is paid direct to BT as they are the people rolling it out and whatever your local TV stations are. Not sure what that really covers though but that is suggesting that local TV stations only need 47p a month but BBC needs £11.40 then.
And so to suggest that it isn't a BBC licence is very much missing what it really is.
Edit: there are tens of thousands of live services and so if I watch them I have to pay the BBC 86% of a large fee to do so and you don't think that is wrong is the point of all of this? If it was 10% and there was 90% going to whatever the I would get that being a TV licence but it's a BBC licence with things tacked on.
Also note that those services for Welsh TV, S4C and some for freeview were all only added to the licence in 2010. So before that an even greater % was going to the BBC.
Soldato
In BBC TV? There already ads on there between shows though right? So then add more ads into the shows themselves you mean?
You were wrong taking issue with the statement "it funds more than the BBC". You can disagree with what the TV licence should fund, or the TV licence in general, but you shouldn't call out a correct factual statement as wrong.
Soldato
Thanks, I'm glad someone can understand the basic point being made. If you go back to their original point that they've been trying to argue, they've contradicted themselves in the same paragraph.
Logic is brilliant with that, it all goes to the government. Well yes but then back to the BBC.It all goes to the government.
Contrary to the theme of this thread it's not just BBC, not just TV, and the entire budget doesn't get blown on EastEnders.
Soldato
I gey what you are both saying but it still rubbish and the principle is that it is basically a BBC licence still. It is forced to pay to watch BBC or anything live from anyone else in the world and then you pay 86% of the fee back to them for nothing.
So with that me saying all goes back was the bloody principle that it rubbish and goes to them for what is about 0.001% of the content you have to pay it for.
It's the complete denial that it isn't just basically covering the BBC that frustrates me.
Nobody has suggested why or how I should be paying the BBC for content they don't produce and they feel entitled too. It's a stealth tax forced to people whom want to watch any live service for nothing in return from what you pay.
Soldato
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
The adds on the BBC are for other shows.
The key part there is "TV programmes live", the examples they provide are written in an obscure way to mislead. These are same people that send threatening letters each month, the letters of which also contain obscure language.
It's any live television programme.
The actual law is below:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4
There are a few live TV programmes on Youtube, some of the news channels for example, but almost all live feeds on Youtube are not live TV programmes, they aren't being shown on TV.
Last edited: