You never went to school?
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
You never went to school?
If Trump successfully sues the BBC for even a fraction of the $10B he wants, that'll upset the paying customer base that the BBC tentatively is hanging on to, as they'll see it as them paying price for their error. No doubt there will be some backroom deals to ensure it doesn't get that far.
The simple solution is that they need to go subscription based to even the playing field with Netflix, Disney and all the other services. But the BBC know that if they were to do that, the only toll they'll get is that of the bells.
The simple solution is that they need to go subscription based to even the playing field with Netflix, Disney and all the other services. But the BBC know that if they were to do that, the only toll they'll get is that of the bells.
I would accept a spin off of entertainment to subscription (by that I mean sport, comedy, siaps etc etc) and roll radio, education, world service into tax.
But this would be too complex.
I expect politicians to take the easy way out and just bundle it all into tax
But this would be too complex.
I expect politicians to take the easy way out and just bundle it all into tax
That's why it won't happen. The option is to stay as is with a natural decline that can be managed over time. Or to make it immune to scrutiny and bundle into tax
Subscription would kill it dead far too quickly
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,391
- Location
- The South
Of course and i'm thankful to my parents who paid for it. In the same way i'm thankful for the BBC and it's education resources (Bitesize etc) during my early years which my schools also used for teaching.
As said, i'm highlighting the fact we all pay for services which we don't use through taxation were folk are seemingly happy to pay for those public services but not another.
As you're comparing the BBC to Netflix and Disney, pure TV streaming services, i assume you mean making the TV arm of BBC subscription based? What would you do with the rest of the services the BBC offers?
What do you mean by "entertainment"? Is that purely TV or entertainment across all of the BBC's output/programming? As arguably that could also include radio and website etc.
IMO, a simpler solution would perhaps be to split the TV arm of the BBC into a subscription service and fund the rest of the BBC services through taxation. But as said, i can't imagine that would wash with a lot of the pitchforkers.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 4,799
- Location
- Gloucestershire
I'm still trying to figure out what those are.
I don't listen to radio, I have no use for bitesize etc, I can get the weather from other sources (is the BBC linked with MET office?). Sounds like most, if not all, other BBC services I do not require, or can find alternatives for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 4,799
- Location
- Gloucestershire
AI says:
I do not use or want any of those. And if any learning/educational items sound appealing, I'll happily pay for them (as a product, not a tax).
I do not use or want any of those. And if any learning/educational items sound appealing, I'll happily pay for them (as a product, not a tax).
so you've see nothing online that represents bbc syndicated news - guess you haven't heard about the latest immigration scam.
(e: they were advertsing prepping for food shortages yesterday too, so it's not all good)
Meanwhile BBC was advertising financing of another Attenborough stuff, I guess netflix doesn't want to buy the rights for UK distribution (whys that)
doing doctor who anniversary stuff on bbc4 last night - Tennant's doctor - RIP
(e: they were advertsing prepping for food shortages yesterday too, so it's not all good)
Meanwhile BBC was advertising financing of another Attenborough stuff, I guess netflix doesn't want to buy the rights for UK distribution (whys that)
doing doctor who anniversary stuff on bbc4 last night - Tennant's doctor - RIP
Last edited:
The problem is that the BBC were about 10 years behind on that story. Suella Braverman raised it in parliament 5 years ago and you know how slow politicians are!
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,391
- Location
- The South
There's a few services missed there, such as R&D. The fact we produce, broadcast and watch HD TV (4k to a lesser extent) in this country is largely down to the BBC.
They now back in partnership; previously it was MG/DTN.
If only we could apply the same "i'm alright jack" approach to taxes, eh?
yes but many of us don't learn lessons so a news organisation toi act as a reminder can be useful - lest we forget ...
(saying that until now I'd foirgotten about the temporary status refugees now have .... as had the media ? , so those who are now happily married with different sex parteners can be thrown out,
bit of a double-edged sword after all)
I think jack could be imprisoned somewhere - with just an OC feed to survive
TV, radio is quite cheap. And it could be cheaper if they binned off the high pay personalities.
By entertainment I mean things like game shows, soaps, drama, sport etc.
They could also just utilise adverts too as we know subscription is a no go
There's a few services missed there, such as R&D. The fact we produce, broadcast and watch HD TV (4k to a lesser extent) in this country is largely down to the BBC.
They now back in partnership; previously it was MG/DTN.
If only we could apply the same "i'm alright jack" approach to taxes, eh?
BBC had its time creating infrastructure etc
But it's no longer important. HD etc would have come without the BBC on the global stage.
BBC has its place. But much like blockbuster is no longer important like it was.
There's a lot of services I don't use I have no issue paying for. But the BBC is not one of those in my opinion.
If BBC was valued enough by enough people it would flourish on a subscription model. But it isn't. Otherwise they'd be pushing for it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 4,799
- Location
- Gloucestershire
If only we could apply the same "i'm alright jack" approach to taxes, eh?
While I get your point, aside from some of the other services I didn't list, everything in that list is a 'Netflix etc equivalent'. Luxury items I don't need. No-one needs TV per se.....but they do need council services etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,391
- Location
- The South
Other nations were way ahead, like Japan.
But specifically to the UK, the BBC was the fundamental force in developing the needed infrastructure, tech, broadcasting and filming methods in bringing HD TV, especially paywall-free HD, to the nation.
Likewise, the same with DAB and bringing that to the UK.
And if you ever read their R&D website/blog, you'll see the BBC still has a massive hand in the development of tech across all platforms (tv, radio, web etc).
I appreciate this is GD not SC but that is an opinion rather than fact; there's plenty of people that see value in the BBC and can also see that it offers much more than mere TV.
Personally, in the same way i'm happy to pay towards a users kid(s) get an education or help someone here with their benefits (through taxation), i have no issue paying for a public service knowing that services like the World Service, education resources and news/journalism helps others here in the UK as well as abroad, especially in lesser privileged nations, regardless of what i directly receive, consume or benefit.
I think this "I'm alright jack", race to the bottom approach that some are displaying in wanting to remove a public service is sad and IMO, i feel it'll ultimately propel us closer to "setups" used in other countries like the USA.
If there's enough people who see value in the BBC there would be no issue going to subscription. The only possible reason not to is the massive loss in revenue.
I don't mind paying for world service etc. But not the very personal entertainment section. I don't watch any of it. And it's not same as most other public services. I don't use trains, but I'd be happy for trains to come out of tax as they are critical infrastructure.
A decade or 2 ago the BBC was very important. It's entertainment sector is not important anymore. And if it is, those who want it can pay for it. It should not be tax.
Why would I want to pay for a trashy game show? Or a soap I don't watch? This stuff is brain rot and shouldn't be funded from tax.
Last edited:
@200sols' suggestion sounds appropriate then.
We seem to be saying the same thing over and over again at this point.
I think people are confused about the LAW on a TV licence. You ONLY need a licence if you watch live TV (as it's broadcast) on any device (TV, computer etc) - you do not need a licence if watch recorded programs.
The BBC are a private company and have no rights to enter your house without your permission. They need 'proof' that you watch live broadcast (to take you to court) and is why they visit to try and 'trick' you into admitting that you do (that's when you get done!). If they turn up at your door just refuse to speak to them (don't open the door) and tell them to go away. There is really nothing they can do. just because you have a TV (or computer) does not mean you watch live TV, so having a TV (or computer) is no evidence that you need a licence.
It's a bit like the local council wanting to invade your house to search for fishing rods, in case you need a fishing licence. Unless you use it, you don't need a licence.
The old adverts about TV detector vans was all a lie - they can't tell if you are watching TV - was just to scare you into paying up for a licence! - FOI request confirmed no prosecutions ever from TV detector vans!
You can write to the BBC and remove their implied right of access to your property (don't give them ANY details of who you are, simply sign it the "owner of the property" rather than your name). This will stop those threatening letters piling through your letterbox - they will write to confirm, but say they will be in touch again in two years to see if circumstances have changed. Just ignore any further correspondence.
They cannot send round bailiffs without a court order, and they would not get a court based on no evidence, so don't engage and they have nothing to pursue you for.
I have never had a TV licence and don't get bothered by them anymore as they know I don't need one, even tho I have both a TV and computer, but I do not break the LAW and don't watch live broadcasts.
Note: makes me laugh when they ask if you watch iPlayer - well you need to input a TV licence number to login - so you can't unless you pay for it!
Don't be bullied and threatened by this private company (The BBC) - just tell them to do one as you would any other private company that tried to extort money from you - simple.
Enjoy your viewing of TV licence free, as long as it's not live broadcasts.
The BBC are a private company and have no rights to enter your house without your permission. They need 'proof' that you watch live broadcast (to take you to court) and is why they visit to try and 'trick' you into admitting that you do (that's when you get done!). If they turn up at your door just refuse to speak to them (don't open the door) and tell them to go away. There is really nothing they can do. just because you have a TV (or computer) does not mean you watch live TV, so having a TV (or computer) is no evidence that you need a licence.
It's a bit like the local council wanting to invade your house to search for fishing rods, in case you need a fishing licence. Unless you use it, you don't need a licence.
The old adverts about TV detector vans was all a lie - they can't tell if you are watching TV - was just to scare you into paying up for a licence! - FOI request confirmed no prosecutions ever from TV detector vans!
You can write to the BBC and remove their implied right of access to your property (don't give them ANY details of who you are, simply sign it the "owner of the property" rather than your name). This will stop those threatening letters piling through your letterbox - they will write to confirm, but say they will be in touch again in two years to see if circumstances have changed. Just ignore any further correspondence.
They cannot send round bailiffs without a court order, and they would not get a court based on no evidence, so don't engage and they have nothing to pursue you for.
I have never had a TV licence and don't get bothered by them anymore as they know I don't need one, even tho I have both a TV and computer, but I do not break the LAW and don't watch live broadcasts.
Note: makes me laugh when they ask if you watch iPlayer - well you need to input a TV licence number to login - so you can't unless you pay for it!
Don't be bullied and threatened by this private company (The BBC) - just tell them to do one as you would any other private company that tried to extort money from you - simple.
Enjoy your viewing of TV licence free, as long as it's not live broadcasts.
Last edited:
We had "HD" for online streams way before the BBC thought about it.
But only the BBC have really pushed broadcasting in the UK because they have a monopoly on it, they got money no matter what they did because it's extorted from the public. But we are now at the point where they are just irrelevant. It's not really a "public service" anymore. The BBC doesn't offer anything other broadcasters or even websites don't, much less actually.
Last edited: