TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
If they added a monthly option I'd probably get it sometimes - at the moment we switch between services (Netflix, Prime, AppleTV etc) etc month to month alongside getting Disney+ through Lloyds. There's some BBC stuff on iPlayer that would make it attractive to switch to but not for a year (or faffing around getting a refund for unused months). No interest in live TV.
 
Last edited:
GGizmo said:
I bet they move it to general taxation, as the government is more interested in getting as much money as possible.
Click to expand...
It seems they've ruled that out as well.

www.bbc.co.uk

Licence fee: Lisa Nandy rules out funding BBC from taxes

The culture secretary calls the TV licence "regressive" and is thinking "radically" about alternatives.
www.bbc.co.uk

This is looking good for those who want it to be funded by ads, a subscription or a mix of both.
 
Shadowness said:
But presumably, other live TV (space launches, sporting events that have nothing to do with BBC such as a triathlon broadcast from Hawaii) does not count in that?
Click to expand...
You need a licence for any live TV, Netflix broadcasting WWE live or Amazon broadcasting the football/rugby all come under it
 
Sky News stream on YouTube 24/7, in theory, you'd need a TV licence to watch that if you live in the UK, but it's one of those things where unless you outright admit to it, they'd never know.

I remember reading somewhere that if you are in a court building, which don't have TV licences, you can watch live TV via BBC iPlayer or some other website/app, as long as your phone, laptop, tablet isn't physically plugged into the building (e.g. a charger), but as long as you own a TV licence and don't plug it in, you are fine.

Very stupid and archaic.
 
We cancelled our TV license towards the end of 2024.

All we used to do was watch the news and the odd program on BCC on Christmas day.

For the cost of it we decided to cancel it and be done with it as we never watched anything live (Except the above) and there is other ways to watch the programs on Christmas day or the news.

Dop not miss it at all.
 
Charlie_ said:
It seems they've ruled that out as well.

www.bbc.co.uk

Licence fee: Lisa Nandy rules out funding BBC from taxes

The culture secretary calls the TV licence "regressive" and is thinking "radically" about alternatives.
www.bbc.co.uk

This is looking good for those who want it to be funded by ads, a subscription or a mix of both.
Click to expand...
There was a guy on BBC radio talking about shares and all current tv license people would start off with shares.

I'm not sure how that would generate regular money though, unless it's part of a bigger idea.
 
Charlie_ said:
Sky News stream on YouTube 24/7, in theory, you'd need a TV licence to watch that if you live in the UK, but it's one of those things where unless you outright admit to it, they'd never know.

I remember reading somewhere that if you are in a court building, which don't have TV licences, you can watch live TV via BBC iPlayer or some other website/app, as long as your phone, laptop, tablet isn't physically plugged into the building (e.g. a charger), but as long as you own a TV licence and don't plug it in, you are fine.

Very stupid and archaic.
Click to expand...
It does demonstrate that BBC funding should either come via taxable or subscription because the ‘BBC’ still want you to pay when you aren’t watching their stuff!

Imagine if Tescos demanded a cut of Asdas profits if you’d shopped there! They should at least be honest about it.
 
Brazo said:
It does demonstrate that BBC funding should either come via taxable or subscription because the ‘BBC’ still want you to pay when you aren’t watching their stuff!

Imagine if Tescos demanded a cut of Asdas profits if you’d shopped there! They should at least be honest about it.
Click to expand...
The TV licence also helps fund the broadcasting infrastructure such as masts. So companies such as ITV etc still make use of it when broadcasting over the air. From that point of view I can see why you need a licence to watch ITV.

But in the modern world I stopped watching through and aerial many years ago. Even when I did watch live TV it was streamed online. So maybe there should be a licence exemption if you watch live non-BBC channels through your broadband.
 
Hades said:
The TV licence also helps fund the broadcasting infrastructure such as masts. So companies such as ITV etc still make use of it when broadcasting over the air. From that point of view I can see why you need a licence to watch ITV.

But in the modern world I stopped watching through and aerial many years ago. Even when I did watch live TV it was streamed online. So maybe there should be a licence exemption if you watch live non-BBC channels through your broadband.
Click to expand...
Ok I didn’t consider masts, perhaps because like you I’ve only received it through a cable for more years than the age of most posters on here!

For me Ariel’s and masts don’t exist so unsure why I should subsidise the BBC!
 
Hades said:
The TV licence also helps fund the broadcasting infrastructure such as masts. So companies such as ITV etc still make use of it when broadcasting over the air. From that point of view I can see why you need a licence to watch ITV.
Click to expand...
The licence funds a lot more than just the BBC's output content; the fact people are watching TV in HD in the UK was largely down to the BBC's r&d and development of protocols/systems (BBC R&D website and blog is worth a read if anyone cares). Similarly with IPTV, catch-up services or IP-based broadcast production suites (to some extent).

But the loud majority continuously ignore this and just keep bleating "i DoN't WaTcH eAsTEnDeRs, i DoN'T wAnNa PaY!!!1!!11" unfortunately.

Brazo said:
For me Ariel’s and masts don’t exist so unsure why I should subsidise the BBC!
Click to expand...
We all have to subsidise for services we don't directly use...

Selv0.gif
 
But those are services we actually need.

They don't even make their own stuff anymore, they outsource but don't want to spend much money. So most of it is garbage and has been for years.

The "youth" don't care about live TV. Especially when you can have a few streaming services for the same price as TV licence. What's the point. News is free from 1000s of sources so we don't need that from them anymore.

tom_e said:
You need a licence for any live TV, Netflix broadcasting WWE live or Amazon broadcasting the football/rugby all come under it
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that. You don't need it for watching a live stream over YouTube, twitch, etc for instance. The BBCs blanket "you need it for everything live" is BS. It only covers things being "broadcast live", which is a specific thing. If it is an end to end connection it isn't being broadcast.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
It's more complicated than that. You don't need it for watching a live stream over YouTube, twitch, etc for instance. The BBCs blanket "you need it for everything live" is BS. It only covers things being "broadcast live", which is a specific thing. If it is an end to end connection it isn't being broadcast.
Click to expand...
I did wonder about this.

We do not watch live TV or the BBC but we see Sky news live feed on YouTube. Can we watch these as its not being broadcast by the BBC and its via YouTube or do we need to pay for anything live regardless of how its getting to your tv
 
ED209 said:
I did wonder about this.

We do not watch live TV or the BBC but we see Sky news live feed on YouTube. Can we watch these as its not being broadcast by the BBC and its via YouTube or do we need to pay for anything live regardless of how its getting to your tv
Click to expand...
Licence needed, it's so you can't just watch the live TV online to avoid needing a licence.
 
You also don't need it for live "user created content" online. Which means there are grey areas (where is the line between a user and a business? They can both be users of the service they are streaming over). Which is probably why you never hear of people getting done that way, as well as it being hard or impossible to track (especially if you use a VPN :P).

It's always because they are tricked in to incriminating themselves in person.

The BBC ruled radio and TV broadcasts and now they think they can rule the digital age as well. Nope. They are still in the 1900s.
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
The licence funds a lot more than just the BBC's output content; the fact people are watching TV in HD in the UK was largely down to the BBC's r&d and development of protocols/systems (BBC R&D website and blog is worth a read if anyone cares). Similarly with IPTV, catch-up services or IP-based broadcast production suites (to some extent).

But the loud majority continuously ignore this and just keep bleating "i DoN't WaTcH eAsTEnDeRs, i DoN'T wAnNa PaY!!!1!!11" unfortunately.


We all have to subsidise for services we don't directly use...

Selv0.gif
Click to expand...

Yeah but just because things were funded by the BBC doesn't mean they are entitled to funding for the rest of time.

Drugs companies lose rights to their products over the long term too.

The BBC had a place. But it times have changed and it no longer NEEDS to exist.
 
Nasher said:
But those are services we actually need.
Click to expand...
Given the "i'm alright jack" angle of this thread and in the same vane as @Brazo "Ariel’s and masts don’t exist" - for me schools "don't exist", for me NHS dentists "don't exist", for me job centres and benefits "don't exist" and there's many more services that "don't exist" - so why am i subsidising them?
* i am being facetious but the point of how absurd Brazo's comment was still stands.

413x said:
Yeah but just because things were funded by the BBC doesn't mean they are entitled to funding for the rest of time.
Click to expand...
They still are but again, there's far too many folk here just sticking fingers in ears whilst rambling on about TV content and attempting to compare the BBC to Netflix.
 
visibleman said:
Given the "i'm alright jack" angle of this thread and in the same vane as @Brazo "Ariel’s and masts don’t exist" - for me schools "don't exist", for me NHS dentists "don't exist", for me job centres and benefits "don't exist" and there's many more services that "don't exist" - so why am i subsidising them?
* i am being facetious but the point of how absurd Brazo's comment was still stands.


They still are but again, there's far too many folk here just sticking fingers in ears whilst rambling on about TV content and attempting to compare the BBC to Netflix.
Click to expand...

The BBC doesn't provide anything which is vital, or even unique anymore. Everything they offer you can find elsewhere and now usually better.

The quality of BBC programming has gone downhill massively. No comedy, shows which used to be great are now so badly written and acted, no one is watching and they are being cut.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom