Tv licence
- Thread starter gazzaa
- Start date
which is what? a bunch of program most people wont watch
You're saying most people don't watch BBC programmes?
As far as I'm concerned I get little from them. They're as bias and bland as any other news source, and they provide very few shows that I'd wilfully give up money for. This is of course my personal opinion, and I'm glad you're happy with what you get, but I honestly feel I should have the choice to go without the BBC without being forced to pretty much go without either satellite or cable TV.
I'm not against taxes themselves, and if I was directly using the BBC's infrastructure, I could completely understand that. In fact, I'd be more than happy to pay my share for a country wide nationalised network that'd carry Internet, TV, and phone calls, that the BBC / BT could have been, but instead I get to pay for you to watch some channels you like.
Last edited:
I would pay the license just for BBC4.
However if you or anyone in your household never watch live BBC TV, never listen to BBC radio and never use BBC web services I suppose ethically you do not need to pay a license. All these are funded, if not explicitly, by the TV license payers in this country.
Sometimes I wish some people got what they really wished for, no publically funded broadcast services, no taxation, all supported by 15 minutes of ads per hour or acres of web space.
£12 per month or a pint of beer a week, hardly worth the effort of avoiding.
andy.
However if you or anyone in your household never watch live BBC TV, never listen to BBC radio and never use BBC web services I suppose ethically you do not need to pay a license. All these are funded, if not explicitly, by the TV license payers in this country.
Sometimes I wish some people got what they really wished for, no publically funded broadcast services, no taxation, all supported by 15 minutes of ads per hour or acres of web space.
£12 per month or a pint of beer a week, hardly worth the effort of avoiding.
andy.
Anything broadcasted live requires a license. However i don't see why i should have to pay if i only watched ITV on something like TVcatchup where no actual broadcasting occurs.
It's all abit of a fiddle because if everyone realised they could watch anything on Freeview for free (excluding the BBC) via the Internet then nobody would pay and it would all go ****-up.
It's all abit of a fiddle because if everyone realised they could watch anything on Freeview for free (excluding the BBC) via the Internet then nobody would pay and it would all go ****-up.
TVCatchup? The site where it's essentially freeview on the internet? That needs a licence as it's streaming the channels that are being broadcasted at that point, aka you're watching the channels as they are being broadcasted, which is the one of the times you need a licence.
BBC Resistance site is here:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
Link to petition is here:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/petition/index.php
Copied from site:
"In an age of virtually infinite digital choice, the BBC licence fee is unfair and cruel. No viewer has ever decided that the BBC should take £8 million a day from the public - approximately £3 billion a year."
(I hate the TV Licence, how they get away with it is beyond my comprehension.)
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
Link to petition is here:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/petition/index.php
Copied from site:
"In an age of virtually infinite digital choice, the BBC licence fee is unfair and cruel. No viewer has ever decided that the BBC should take £8 million a day from the public - approximately £3 billion a year."
(I hate the TV Licence, how they get away with it is beyond my comprehension.)
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 8,242
- Location
- North East
More like putting them in front of him and charging for what he chooses to eat.
As far as I'm concerned I get little from them. They're as bias and bland as any other news source, and they provide very few shows that I'd wilfully give up money for. This is of course my personal opinion, and I'm glad you're happy with what you get, but I honestly feel I should have the choice to go without the BBC without being forced to pretty much go without either satellite or cable TV.
I'm not against taxes themselves, and if I was directly using the BBC's infrastructure, I could completely understand that. In fact, I'd be more than happy to pay my share for a country wide nationalised network that'd carry Internet, TV, and phone calls, that the BBC / BT could have been, but instead I get to pay for you to watch some channels you like.
Now the question is how much british made TV do you watch? That includes BBC content, ITV ccontent, Channe 4 content, the aforementioned channels content on other channels (such as Dave and the UKTV network)? Almost all of that will be in some way influenced by the TV licencing at some point in time.
If of course you only watch US shows then I'll let you off, but that kinda begs the question of why you have a TV anyway...
EDIT: And then there are programs like the Blue Planet and Planet Earth, programmes that couldn't be made by any other TV channel in the world it seems due to the cost and years of work. National geographic channels don't come close let alone the dross you get on most US channels and UK channels like ITV.
Last edited:
Erm because the BBC is not the only UK broadcaster that gets money from the TV licencing?
You mean like, i dunno.. A shop?
Actually now we have gone digital I wonder how easy (read cheap) it would be to just encrypt the signal. It would solve a whole lot of problems from the unsolicited goods brigade (although it would not really make a difference, it's just a card different).
The problem is I doubt it would actually make a difference. Most people would still pay the £12 a month for the "free"view subscription and the £12 would just be added onto the sky and virgin subscriptions. Of course you could technically suggest that people would opt out but that would be up to the service providers and we already see them bundling loads of rubbish channels in with a couple of good ones so it would probably be the same...
The problem is I doubt it would actually make a difference. Most people would still pay the £12 a month for the "free"view subscription and the £12 would just be added onto the sky and virgin subscriptions. Of course you could technically suggest that people would opt out but that would be up to the service providers and we already see them bundling loads of rubbish channels in with a couple of good ones so it would probably be the same...
I myself watch very little TV, and when I do, they're mostly American based TV shows from HBO, AMC, or the like. I do have a subscription to virgin media, largely for the other half’s benefits, which helps me get ripped off further due to channel packaging.
The fear that, all of a sudden, our programming would go to pot if the BBC was no longer funded, I find a bit far fetched. At the end of the day, if the BBCs programming was genuinely held in a good light by the masses, then they'd be able to survive on their own as it is. Otherwise, they do not deserve to be in the position they are currently in, and don't deserve to take a piece of a pie when they've not put any effort into providing it.
The problem is if the BBC were a commercially funded channel there is no way they could afford or get the shareholders permission for expensive long lived pogrammes like so many of the Documentaries they do. Unfortunately a large number of TV watching people don't care about documentaries and would rather watch a cheap soap, then dip into a fast paced hyperbole documentary every so often.
Along with the funding the BBC has a remit on what it has to provide with that funding. Now obviously if they are given no public funding then they shouldn't have that remit and the quality of programming will crash...
Along with the funding the BBC has a remit on what it has to provide with that funding. Now obviously if they are given no public funding then they shouldn't have that remit and the quality of programming will crash...