Associate
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 483
They won't scrap the TV licencing, they'll do a bit of 'editing' to the rules and change the name.
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
Soldato
I'm genuinely shocked at this. I work in broadcast and really thought I understood and that the rules at least were clear. That policy is really bizarre, what's the point?! If you're watching broadcast from another country it's not using any of the UK's infrastructure or budget beyond electricity.Do I need a TV Licence? - TV Licensing ™
This will provide help and information on: whether you need a TV Licence, how to get one, types available and concessions you could be entitled to.www.tvlicensing.co.uk
Unnecessary and overstepping boundaries IMO.
Commissario
I haven’t read through all your posts in the thread but would I be right to assume you don’t have/need a TV licence?
I watch Netflix, Disney+, my DVD/Blu Ray collection(600+) and Youtube and play my PS4.
Don't watch any live TV. Haven't for years.
Soldato
How do you watch Dr Who?
Commissario
But you’re all over the Doctor Who thread straight after the episodes are shown. How are you able to do that legally without a licence?
Shhh, don't ruin it for themBut you’re all over the Doctor Who thread straight after the episodes are shown. How are you able to do that legally without a licence?
I watch it at my old man's house. Is that a crime?But you’re all over the Doctor Who thread straight after the episodes are shown. How are you able to do that legally without a licence?
Commissario
Oh, right. Of course.
For me Amazon Prime/Video and Netflix. In the past I used to get the Bluerays but not much point now we can just stream it online.
Good to see Lineker still raking it in on the money train with his £1.39m fee. That's 8,491 people who have to pay a license just to fund that one presenter.
Gary Lineker stays top of BBC star pay list
The Match of the Day presenter takes home £1.35m, with Radio 2's Zoe Ball the next highest earner.
www.bbc.co.uk
Soldato
Where do you stand on the argument that for quality talent you have to pay the going rate that other networks offer?Good to see Lineker still raking it in on the money train with his £1.39m fee. That's 8,491 people who have to pay a license just to fund that one presenter.
Gary Lineker stays top of BBC star pay list
The Match of the Day presenter takes home £1.35m, with Radio 2's Zoe Ball the next highest earner.www.bbc.co.uk
I've accepted that at relatively face value and not spent much time thinking about it so I'm interested in other perspectives.
My position is that you do indeed need to pay appropriate salaries to attract the necessary talent. But, and this is a genuine question, what does Lineker bring to the BBC that another sports commentator could not bring for far less money? What does he bring to the BBC that is worth £1.34m? Were they unable to find anyone else willing to do the job for a lower cost? What is it specifically about him that justifies such a huge amount more than any other commentator on the BBC? Has he added more than £1.34m of value to the BBC?
I don't have sports figures to hand. But apparently BBC audiences across all channels have fallen 70% in the last decade. I assume sport is included in that general trend. So despite paying presenters such a high rate they still seem unable to keep audiences.
Unlike a private company that is entitled to employ whoever they wish for whatever salary they choose, the BBC is a publicly funded organisation (it's our money) and must therefore be accountable for justifying extreme salaries.
Soldato
To me, the BBC is a service paid for by the public, so I'd expect value for money. Quite honestly I don't think anyone is worth a £1m+ salary no matter who they are, and especially when you get actually important people like the Prime Minister who only earns around £160k in his official role.
Soldato
I'm sure you would do it for a fraction of the cost but then you're sports commentary/presenter talent doesn't quite match the quality of Lineker's
And that's arguably the crux of the problem - can they get the same "pull" (more so in terms of audience) and similar quality with someone else doing it for less?
Even if they did manage to pluck someone willing to do it for peanuts, they will still have to deal with retaining the talent which ultimately boils down to increased spending/salary increases and can be expensive if the talent ends up being half-decent - a la Jake Humphrey.
Either way, given the pressure on the BBC to cut spending and salaries (i believe Lineker is down half a million over a few years ago), i'm sure they're constantly looking into their top talent and determining whether or not they're worth retaining - they obviously deem Lineker is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Doing an "ackchyually", majority of the BBC is funded from the license fee with around a quarter being funded from their commercial arm(s).
So maybe Lineker is paid out of that?
Soldato
If I got an Apple TV and just watch on-demand, app TV etc (not live), the I would NOT need a licence?
Is live TV the only main requirement?
iPlayer was the only service that even if watching on demand, you still need a licence. Would they not know you have an iPlayer account though? (without a licence)
Is live TV the only main requirement?
iPlayer was the only service that even if watching on demand, you still need a licence. Would they not know you have an iPlayer account though? (without a licence)
Soldato
You only need a license if you are watching any live broadcast (regardless of who is screening it) and/or BBC cathc-up services (iPlayer).
Soldato
Soldato
If it's live, or iPlayer, then you need a licence, regardless of platform; on-demand then no - https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104
IIRC, they (currently) don't require verification of your licence, or anything to tie you to one like your address, and just rely on you be truthful when answering the "Do you have a licence?" popup.
I don't doubt that will change in the future and your account will get tied to a licence ID/number etc.