TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
Well my wife did indeed just call the TV licencing people to let them know we no longer need a licence. It went pretty much as I expected. Part way through they asked to speak to me as I'm the licence holder. It was like being interrogated and being treated like a potential criminal. They wanted to know what we were watching such as streaming services. I refused to tell them and just kept repeating that we don't watch live TV and don't need a licence. But she didn't seem able to not continue with her script. Then they "wanted to make me aware" that they may send an "officer" around at any time to check. At that point I told them they had no right to enter the house and I was not agreeing to them doing so. The agent then said she would have to transfer me to another department. I've no idea what that was about but I assume it was because we weren't answering her questions. So my wife grabbed the phone and told them in no uncertain terms they were treating us like criminals and we are fed up funding their sex scandals :D We put the phone down at that point.

I did warn my wife beforehand not to bother calling them as this is how it would go. But she had said she wanted to do the right thing. I was prepared for it as I've been watching this situation unfold for a few years (thanks ChillieConCarne). But she genuinely thought she was doing a nice thing trying to let them know. Now she's fuming as she feels she's been treated as someone trying to dodge it.

I've told her to simply bin any letters and to shut the door on anyone coming round. I've also got her to uninstall iplayer from her phone so she can't accidentally start it. I'll warn the kids to do the same too.
 
Hades said:
Well my wife did indeed just call the TV licencing people to let them know we no longer need a licence. It went pretty much as I expected. Part way through they asked to speak to me as I'm the licence holder. It was like being interrogated and being treated like a potential criminal. They wanted to know what we were watching such as streaming services. I refused to tell them and just kept repeating that we don't watch live TV and don't need a licence. But she didn't seem able to not continue with her script. Then they "wanted to make me aware" that they may send an "officer" around at any time to check. At that point I told them they had no right to enter the house and I was not agreeing to them doing so. The agent then said she would have to transfer me to another department. I've no idea what that was about but I assume it was because we weren't answering her questions. So my wife grabbed the phone and told them in no uncertain terms they were treating us like criminals and we are fed up funding their sex scandals :D We put the phone down at that point.

I did warn my wife beforehand not to bother calling them as this is how it would go. But she had said she wanted to do the right thing. I was prepared for it as I've been watching this situation unfold for a few years (thanks ChillieConCarne). But she genuinely thought she was doing a nice thing trying to let them know. Now she's fuming as she feels she's been treated as someone trying to dodge it.

I've told her to simply bin any letters and to shut the door on anyone coming round. I've also got her to uninstall iplayer from her phone so she can't accidentally start it. I'll warn the kids to do the same too.
Click to expand...

I find their approach REALLY offensive. It's always "you must be guilty, we just need you to admit it". I kinda think that some people will get muddled or intimidated and fall in to their trap as well. Either end up paying for a licence they don't need or end up in court when they shouldn't be there.

I don't want to talk to them at all, for that very reason. I don't want to lose a game of words, when I shouldn't have to play the game in the first place.
 
Pottsey said:
You are getting dirty looks because people get upset when you want to force them to pay for a none essential service they don’t want and don’t need which is what you are suggesting. It doesn't matter if you lower the price we still wont use it and don't want to pay for what we see as an old fashioned service we don't need. To use your own words. Even if you get the BBC price down to £150 by forcing everyone on it. "that's quite a bill that wasn't there before."

200MB fast Broadband costs £15 a month and its not like you need 200MB for TV/phones, cheaper 10MB options will do. Unlike the BBC which is not essential service, broadband is classed as essential service for modern day life. Even 1Gbps can be got for £26 a month in many areas. Location isn't for the most part a problem either just this week I got a quote to have a building in the middle of the woods wired up. Granted it cost me a little more then £15 due to the location which was a grand total of £30 a month and it was fast enough to run TV and run phones.

Yes it feels better to my mind and pocket. The BBC is old fashioned and should be optional not forced. Its flat out wrong to force people to pay for the BBC service. Another way to look at is, pretty much everyone has a phone of some sort if you have a phone at least from after the analogue phone switch off you have to have access to Broadband. So why is Broadband a problem? I don't see you complaining about people not having access to phones because they don't have broadband.
Click to expand...

Yes this was on my mind the entire time it was mentioned, you would have it become a cost you're already paying and can be easily ignored to the detriment of anyone who does find value in the current arrangement.
 
Jono8 said:
But its pretty impossible for anyone to operate/live/take part in the economy in the UK now without the internet. The internet is pretty much a necessity in modern life anyway (love it or hate it).
Click to expand...
@LuckyBenski put this a lot better in that even with 99% internet access coverage, there's a lot of the elderly, vulnerable and low income families that simply cannot afford it or the hardware or afford a broadband product that would allow for adequate media streaming.
 
Hotwired said:
Yes this was on my mind the entire time it was mentioned, you would have it become a cost you're already paying and can be easily ignored to the detriment of anyone who does find value in the current arrangement.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what you mean by already paying? The rest of the your post if I understand you right, that's how it should be for none essential services. Its not right to make those that don't want to use a none essential service pay so those that use the service get it cheaper. Don't you see how unfair that is and how its detrimental it is to force everyone into paying? If people don't want to use the service then its right that its ignored and you don't pay. Forcing them to pay is morally wrong.
 
Pottsey said:
I don't really understand what you mean by already paying? The rest of the your post if I understand you right, that's how it should be for none essential services. Its not right to make those that don't want to use a none essential service pay so those that use the service get it cheaper. Don't you see how unfair that is and how its detrimental it is to force everyone into paying? If people don't want to use the service then its right that its ignored and you don't pay. Forcing them to pay is morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Your position looks to gate the BBC behind a completely unavoidable internet tax and now someone such as a pensioner with the least financial flexibility has that and a subscription fee to pay.

You don't care because you (and basically everyone on here) are paying more than a TV licence ever costs in internet fees.

The major hand wringing orbits around personal opinions of whether the BBC should exist or not to provide the service it does. The licence fee money is small beans.
 
Pottsey said:
If people don't want to use the service then its right that its ignored and you don't pay. Forcing them to pay is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Can we get that applied to current services we don't directly use? I pay to send other peoples kids to schools when i don't have children and for others to sit on the dole; i'd like some of my tax back please :cry:

Subsidise broadband for vulnerable, elderly and low-income as well as the TV licence (and basic hardware as @LuckyBenski said); it'll be negligible on the majority whilst not screwing over a percentage of the population due to the "i'm alright jack" mentality some folk here have.
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
@LuckyBenski put this a lot better in that even with 99% internet access coverage, there's a lot of the elderly, vulnerable and low income families that simply cannot afford it or the hardware or afford a broadband product that would allow for adequate media streaming.
Click to expand...

But forcing them to pay £175 a year to watch BBC channels...even if they only want to watch ad supported free channels like channel 4 is ok :confused:

What an odd argument. You can definitely get a reasonable broadband product for not a great deal more than £175 a year, and then you could watch 4od and itv on demand etc...and then they have broadband internet too.

I'm sorry, but the "people can't afford broadband" argument is a very bad one.
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
Your position looks to gate the BBC behind a completely unavoidable internet tax and now someone such as a pensioner with the least financial flexibility has that and a subscription fee to pay.

You don't care because you (and basically everyone on here) are paying more than a TV licence ever costs in internet fees.

The major hand wringing orbits around personal opinions of whether the BBC should exist or not to provide the service it does. The licence fee money is small beans.
Click to expand...
So take these pensioners with the least financial flexibility. Why do you think it’s fair to force them to pay £175 extra BBC tax for a service that many of them don’t want and don’t need? Why is that a better solution and how are they meant to pay for it? Why should they like the rest of us be forced into paying?

Your acting like Broadband is a luxury when its not a luxury for modern life. Everyone pretty much already has the internet as its needed for every day living like phone lines, banking and everything else we do online these days.

You say I don’t care but I think it’s the other way around. You come across as you just wanting everyone else to pay towards your bill so you get a cheaper service. Even if we don’t want that service. Why should I or pensioners have to pay money for a none essential service we don't want or need just so you get a cheaper BBC bill?
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
Can we get that applied to current services we don't directly use? I pay to send other peoples kids to schools when i don't have children and for others to sit on the dole; i'd like some of my tax back please :cry:

Subsidise broadband for vulnerable, elderly and low-income as well as the TV licence (and basic hardware as @LuckyBenski said); it'll be negligible on the majority whilst not screwing over a percentage of the population due to the "i'm alright jack" mentality some folk here have.
Click to expand...
You want to school yourself didn't you? View it as your tax is going to towards paying for that. Anyway we are talking about none essential services. There is a difference between being taxed for essential services and being taxed for none essential services. Broadband is essential for modern day life so I would have no problem with a broadband tax or subsidized broadband to get everyone online. Going forward phonelines wont work without broadband so everyone should have the right to have access to broadband.

The BBC is not an essential service and doesn't need to be subsidized or forced taxed.
 
Hotwired said:
You're saying 200-300 when the current price is 175 and if mass taxed there's plenty of reason it would be immediately less not more.

Here and now you're joining an exchange about increasing the cost from 175 to a yearly internet bill plus a subscription fee for the actual content. I expect around 500 a year and most of it for the internet access.

Now that's quite a bill that wasn't there before.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm guessing it would be means tested or a non flat rate. Something like council tax. That would invariably mean many people pay more for it and others less.

There would also be little incentive to keep. It low.
Who controls the cost rise?
Inflation? CPI? RPI? Finger in the air?


I disagree about the Internet access.
The Internet access is needed irrespective of the TV. Ie.. It needs to be done.
So adding TV licence to tax just adds even more.

I reiterate that I don't think entertainment should be bundled into tax due to legacy/history. There's plenty of alternatives. Cinemas don't get this get out clause for example.

Things move on. Times change. The current model is fine. If it can't compete it fails over time. I don't think BBC deserves special treatment.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
So take these pensioners with the least financial flexibility. Why do you think it’s fair to force them to pay £175 extra BBC tax for a service that many of them don’t want and don’t need? Why is that a better solution and how are they meant to pay for it? Why should they like the rest of us be forced into paying?

Your acting like Broadband is a luxury when its not a luxury for modern life. Everyone pretty much already has the internet as its needed for every day living like phone lines, banking and everything else we do online these days.

You say I don’t care but I think it’s the other way around. You come across as you just wanting everyone else to pay towards your bill so you get a cheaper service. Even if we don’t want that service. Why should I or pensioners have to pay money for a none essential service we don't want or need just so you get a cheaper BBC bill?
Click to expand...

Wrong about the pensioners and wrong about me.

These pensioners, they're not forced to pay £175, they don't pay a penny: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ331

Anything you can and have suggested is worse than that and that includes making a quality broadband connection essential to get anything.

And as for me I don't pay for a TV Licence, haven't done for over a decade and not because I'm a shameless weasel. I listen to a good bit of advert free BBC radio in the car, rummage on the advert free website a few times a week and that's it. No TV no streaming of live TV on the computer. Fill in my form every time it comes in, go through all the questions, no licence needed and that's it.

And I'm in favour of a rule change which would mean me paying towards the running costs of the BBC. Not because I have too much money but because I'd rather it continued existing than become another advert ridden commercial organisation that grovels to sponsors and/or is owned by a billionaire wanting a mouthpiece or shareholders wanting profit above all.

It costs billions to run the BBC and whether they're paying or not, it's used by hundreds of millions of people. So when I say a tax I'm looking at the BBC continuing to have the money to operate at that scale, freeloading audiences and all, and when you say change it to an ignorable subscription that requires an internet connection, clearly you're not.

The licence fee is very close to being a tax where people of working age and means pay for the BBC to exist for everyone, I'm saying it should actually be one so we can bin all the edge shenanigans that only exist because it's not a real tax.

Despite my misgivings about the completely limp enforcement of the licence fee (because it's not a real tax) the actual people collecting the fee have a really high figure for the % of households who are licenced so as legally weak as the scheme currently is, the shame and inconvenience of not having a licence seems to be good enough to extract as much as you'd ever get. Diminishing returns when you hunt for the crumbs.

And it provides opportunity for people to take turns expressing disgust at X and announcing loudly that they're cancelling their tv licence, sometimes more than a few years before they get it all back for free anyway. Orienting by a constant deluge of feedback from the public about how a money pile is turned into content is unique for a giant media organisation.
 
Hotwired said:
Wrong about the pensioners and wrong about me.

These pensioners, they're not forced to pay £175, they don't pay a penny: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ331

Anything you can and have suggested is worse than that and that includes making a quality broadband connection essential to get anything.
Click to expand...
I see it as your idea is massively worse and morally wrong just like you was wrong about me as well. As for Broadband its already pretty much essential and will only become more so going forward. Broadband is classed as a legal right like water and power its that essential. Broadband is essential going forward. More and more things are switching to Broadband like phonelines which you keep skipping over. The government’s goal is to get 100% of everyone connected.

It’s pretty simple really give pensioners free broadband or reduced cost which is the same cost as the TV licence. Possibly even scarp the free TV licence for pensioners. Pensioners then can keep using there phonelines, keep access to banking and keep watching TV for free via streaming iPlayer/ITV and the rest.

Broadband is essential for modern life it makes more sense to tax and provide everyone with broadband then it does to tax everyone for the BBC which is obsolete and not essential for modern life.

Its is morally wrong to force people to pay for the none essential services like the BBC that they do not want and do not use.
 
I'm happy to be taxed more to bring broadband to everyone. I'm not happy to be taxed to pay for the BBC.

Ok, if someone lives in on top of a mountain, they should fund it themselves though.
 
Pottsey said:
Possibly even scarp the free TV licence for pensioners.

Its is morally wrong to force people to pay for the none essential services like the BBC that they do not want and do not use.
Click to expand...
All pensioners WERE exempt from the TV licence fee until the scumbag BBC forced them to start paying again a few years back, with only those on pension credit being eligible to get it free.

Also agree with a non-essential service like the BBC not being wanted as yet another tax. If you don't use it you should not be required to pay for it, nor prove you don't need to. As others have said, make them fund themselves or die. They already own part of Channel 4 I believe so presumably make money from advertising there, and I'm sure they probably get advertising revenue elsewhere too. There's no reason they can't do that for the main BBC channels.
 
Last edited:
  • I am moving and will be covered by a licence at my new address
  • I no longer watch TV on any channel or service, or use BBC iPlayer
  • The licence holder has passed away
  • I am moving abroad

When I try to cancel, I get the following... Any other reason allows me to cancel, does it actually matter which one you select?

'To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.

We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.

*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline. If you get inclusive minutes, calls to an 0300 number will be included free of charge.'
 
IC3 said:
  • I am moving and will be covered by a licence at my new address
  • I no longer watch TV on any channel or service, or use BBC iPlayer
  • The licence holder has passed away
  • I am moving abroad

When I try to cancel, I get the following... Any other reason allows me to cancel, does it actually matter which one you select?

'To continue with your cancellation, please call a member of our team on 0300 790 6098*.

We're open 08:30 - 18:30 Monday to Friday.

*Calls to our 0300 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number, whether from a mobile or landline. If you get inclusive minutes, calls to an 0300 number will be included free of charge.'
Click to expand...
Why bother with that hassle. Just cancel DD and forget about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom