TV Licence

[Marmalade]

I don’t really understand your question 

You feel that everyone, including those that don't watch tv or don't think it's good value should have to pay for it? (which is implied in your general tax proposal).

I'm not saying that's an indefensible position, just wondering if it's actually what you happen to think?

[Watts.E.Dunn]

I know that the BBC is far from perfect but i'd pay the licence fee for the Prom concert series in the Summer, let alone BBC Radio 3 and 4 !...
 

[Blackpool Rock]

I think that the BBC provides excellent quality programmes for a wide variety of interests and that the fee is very good value. Now that it is payable by monthly direct debits, it’s less than the price of two fish suppers a month.

I do believe that the licensing system is overly complex, unwieldy and should be scrapped. It’s too easy to avoid paying. The BBC imho should be funded centrally by government, with the money taken from general tax income. It should (like pensions) increase automagically with inflation and not have to be begged or bartered for.

Yes I agree, personally I think it's excellent VFM for my approx £13/mth direct debit 
And it's not just the TV as you also get advert free radio with the BBC stations so I can listen to live footy when it's on 5 Live which is far better than the shitty commentators on Talksport.
Of course footy has to be listened to unless you go to the pub to watch it or fork out an arm and leg for sky etc

Now here's the thing, it's never ceased to amaze me how many people moan about £13/mth however they are still prepared to fork out for Sky; Netflix; A Prime etc etc so are perfectly happy to pay multiple times more a month.
Obviously that's the way market forces have taken us while the BBC licence fee has been kept very cheap by comparison, it was £2 back in 1946 which is about £88 in todays money however it's on 24/7 now instead of a few hours a day 

So i'm wondering if the BBC licence was more like £100/mth as many seem happy to spunk away to Sky etc then it could be even more fantastic than it is now 

Unfortunately live sport is what has really suffered as it's not free to air anymore and as it all costs so much now to get the rights to broadcast then that's unlikely to change.
I do think there is perhaps a need for the BBC to have some sort of pay to view or subscription channel so they can actually be in with a chance of broadcasting Prem or European football; F1 etc.
Perhaps they could keep the cost down by also allowing some advertising on the sport channels only to make sure it wasn't on the other channels, if they made a profit from sport then it could be used to scrap the normal licence fee

Surprised there appears to be so many on here who don't have a TV licence, i've only come across 1 person previously who didn't have a TV licence but he let slip once that he watched the I Player
OK so some are complying with the rules / law and don't watch live TV but I suspect some just don't pay.

Here's the other thing when people object to paying for something they don't use, some of them are just fuckwits who are then happy to pay 8 times or so more for a Sky package but channels like ITV are funded by adverts however the cost of advertising is ultimately added onto the cost of the products advertised.
So if I don't watch ITV then how come I should have to pay more at the checkout for my shopping   

 

[Markus]

I think that the BBC provides excellent quality programmes for a wide variety of interests and that the fee is very good value. Now that it is payable by monthly direct debits, it’s less than the price of two fish suppers a month.

I do believe that the licensing system is overly complex, unwieldy and should be scrapped. It’s too easy to avoid paying. The BBC imho should be funded centrally by government, with the money taken from general tax income. It should (like pensions) increase automagically with inflation and not have to be begged or bartered for.

I know some older folk who live alone and could not live without the BBC on or the radio on 24/7.  One lady who lives a few doors down can only soundly go to sleep with the radio on.  For people like her I think the payment is well worth it given that they have some sort of interaction with the outside world.  I’m surprised the BBC can not stand on their on two feet as an institution given the amount of money they receive and pay to staff.  Even Alex Jones is on around £450k a year for the one show. Also it’s not like the BBC are not gaining royalties from things like QI being shown on Netflix. 

[Marmalade]

it's never ceased to amaze me how many people moan about £13/mth however they are still prepared to fork out for Sky; Netflix; A Prime etc etc so are perfectly happy to pay multiple times more a month.

Maybe as Prime in particular has a larger catalogue than most other services put together (and also delivers stuff free of charge next day). The BBC's actual catalogue is minute. You pay for live content.

[lostandfound]

Yes I agree, personally I think it's excellent VFM for my approx £13/mth direct debit  ...

Prime is cheap because I buy lots of stuff from Amazon at good prices and it's here next day with no delivery charge - pays for itself over and over. Nothing compares. It's been really noticeable recently that fulfilment from other companies that I buy from online are less good - especially if they use Royal Mail as their courier which is kind of sad.

I stopped watching live TV a long time ago. Just moved on - to setting my schedule instead of being bound by theirs. Was happy to continue paying the licence fee.

However, the BBC was VERY slow to put iPlayer behind a login. From the organisation that had the radiophonic workshop and invented NICAM how could they be so slow on the uptake? It meant that on the rare occasion that I wanted to make use of the licence fee - watch a live sporting event - it was not on iPlayer BECAUSE they'd implemented no access controls and so would have breached their agreement with the content provider. "Wankers" I thought - and that was it for me and the licence fee. It's not as though I would ever be watching live TV anyway.

[tynetunnel]

You feel that everyone, including those that don't watch tv or don't think it's good value should have to pay for it? (which is implied in your general tax proposal).

I'm not saying that's an indefensible position, just wondering if it's actually what you happen to think?

I feel sure  that am overwhelming majority watch and / or listen to the national broadcaster, or read it’s content online or interact with it in some other way. So it would simplify things no end, to cut out all the collection costs, carping, legal actions for non payment and make it something which we all get for free at the point of use (like the NHS or pavements or cycle lanes) Whether we use them or not is then irrelevant.

It is provided universally, if you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. It would just make the decades old arguments go away, and secure the future of our national broadcaster. Whilst I’m not going to get into any discussions about bbc quality, bias and all those other hot potatoes: we do have one of the worlds best national broadcasters, despite its flaws.

[Marmalade]

I feel sure  that am overwhelming majority watch and / or listen to the national broadcaster, or read it’s content online or interact with it in some other way. So it would simplify things no end, to cut out all the collection costs, carping, legal actions for non payment and make it something which we all get for free at the point of use (like the NHS or pavements or cycle lanes) Whether we use them or not is then irrelevant.

It is provided universally, if you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. It would just make the decades old arguments go away, and secure the future of our national broadcaster. Whilst I’m not going to get into any discussions about bbc quality, bias and all those other hot potatoes: we do have one of the worlds best national broadcasters, despite its flaws.

Actually, it would seem that the overwhelming majority disagree with you.
External Link/Members Only 

[toon972]

If you remember many years ago the bbc had the monopoly on most sports. They had formula 1, test match cricket, the FA cup final. Everything has changed now with firstly the introduction of sky television. It comes down to what you can afford, my view is if I can afford £110 for a girl I can afford the license fee.

[chrishornx]

Actually, it would seem that the overwhelming majority disagree with you.
External Link/Members Only 

those stats show the majority feel the licence is unfair but the majority have a licence

subtle difference

External Link/Members Only

[Marmalade]

those stats show the majority feel the licence is unfair but the majority have a licence

subtle difference

External Link/Members Only

It’s not that subtle. But never mind: I can see you believe. hehe

Hidden Image/Members Only

[LLPunting]

Actually, it would seem that the overwhelming majority disagree with you.
External Link/Members Only 

Despite all their claims for active sampling and endeavours to ensure true representation they openly admit that their results can be skewed by voluntary participation in their polling supplemental to their "invited" participants.  I wouldn't trust an online poll because of the abuse of it by trolls or supporters.

The phrasing of the question also seems prejudicial (ignoring the abysmal misspelling of the headline) and is a shocking choice by YouGov, so much for them being a trustworthy pollster.
Most people are fucking clueless about all the programming that is available from the various BBC platforms and it has to be inclusive of all manner of geographic and demographic communities now.  If it weren't for the international sales there'd be fuck all quality at the national level.  The campaign of hate waged against the BBC by other media orgs as well as political posturing, perhaps overtly influenced by vested interests has done a great hatchet job on destroying it's reputation and value proposition.  It hasn't done itself any favours in pandering to the market forces created by the commercial peddlers and thus been caught paying stupid fee levels to its "premium" talent.  Rock and a hard place perhaps.

The point made about all the subs people have been suckered into paying for their "targeted" on demand services is spot on and just goes to show how the content peddlers have manipulated the perception of value whilst buying up the content or acting in cartel with the producers.  My parents pay 75 pcm for Sky yet spend almost all their time watching perhaps 3 commercial channels (of inane cookery shite) and then a load of BBC news and arts and some other national broadcasters that they could stream for free over the connection they're having to pay extra for anyway.
Radio was free and you could buy your music, now the preferred arrangement is you rent your music collection paying many times over what you would've paid for vinyl and CDs over a lifetime subscription.  The con has been on for over a decade,  Spotify should've been a very clear warning, but the simps just lapped it up on their smartphones.

If they want to label the TV Licence a tax then they should also label all subscription services as taxes including mobile phone tariffs.  The insidious thing here though is that the taxes are levied by unelected corporations leveraging huge back-catalogues of public domain content and adding relatively little new, innovative and risky content year on year and taking all the money for themselves not for the public benefit.  They're no better than the IP trolls making a mockery of the patent systems and preventing progressive innovation for the public good.

[Marmalade]

Wow LLP, that’s quite a long post with good socialist rhetoric!
To summarise, YouGov, the multimillion market research group that provides us with more surveys than anyone else is corrupt and skewed. That august institution, the BeeBeeCee, is constantly but apparently unfairly plagued by vile criticism and is actually the light of the world and loved by everybody!

Polls are polls. I’m sure you can find a different survey to prove your point?

No? You could always do your own… 

Hidden Image/Members Only

[tynetunnel]

Hidden Image/Members Only

[tynetunnel]

Actually, it would seem that the overwhelming majority disagree with you.
External Link/Members Only 

I’m happy for the license fee to go. You’re seem to be confusing two different things. Those who feel that the license fee is fair, and those who consume BBC content. It’s possible to despise the fee while enjoying the content. I’m sure that many/most if asked, would prefer not to pay the fee. Surely that’s a no-brainer? 

If the majority think it’s unfair, as the poll suggests then why not abolish it (as we did with dog licences) and just fund out of taxation as I have mooted

[CleverCrazy]

The only good reason to watch TV is World Cup, Euros, Olympics, Paralympics and will chuck in Eurovision

Speaking of British Biased Cunts, coverage of the Olympics has been shit this year - losing most of the coverages to Eurosport - spent more time waffling in a CGI 'studio' - even Channel 4's Paralympics has outdone it since they took it off them

Speaking of Doctor Who, they should replace this woman with a fat feminist - that'll improve the ratings

[yandex]

I think that the BBC provides excellent quality programmes for a wide variety of interests and that the fee is very good value. Now that it is payable by monthly direct debits, it’s less than the price of two fish suppers a month.

I do believe that the licensing system is overly complex, unwieldy and should be scrapped. It’s too easy to avoid paying. The BBC imho should be funded centrally by government, with the money taken from general tax income. It should (like pensions) increase automagically with inflation and not have to be begged or bartered for.

Agree, unfortunately the live sport has been well and truly priced out by greed and corporate muscle but otherwise I think there's a decent return for the money.

[Marmalade]

Agree, unfortunately the live sport has been well and truly priced out by greed and corporate muscle but otherwise I think there's a decent return for the money.

But isn’t the usual argument, couldn’t it be funded out of advertising like other tv stations. “Greed and corporate muscle” — unfortunately, and political persuasions aside — turns out to be more or less the same as market competition, doesn’t it?

[Blackpool Rock]

But isn’t the usual argument, couldn’t it be funded out of advertising like other tv stations. “Greed and corporate muscle” — unfortunately, and political persuasions aside — turns out to be more or less the same as market competition, doesn’t it?

Yes but of course with the likes of Sky you get the worst of both worlds, firstly pay through the nose in subs to watch footy etc and then still get the shitty adverts 

[Marmalade]

Yes but of course with the likes of Sky you get the worst of both worlds, firstly pay through the nose in subs to watch footy etc and then still get the shitty adverts 

I agree. Not that different to Virgin TV packages only bigger. News seems to be their forte — as broadband has been Virgin’s (I’m just speaking as a consumer, haven’t checked their biz details).

That’s the clever thing about Netflix. Their library is very small compared to Prime, but they’re inexpensive, and, unlike Prime, don’t try to extract more money for other channels or premium films.

[chrishornx]

I’m happy for the license fee to go. You’re seem to be confusing two different things. Those who feel that the license fee is fair, and those who consume BBC content. It’s possible to despise the fee while enjoying the content. I’m sure that many/most if asked, would prefer not to pay the fee. Surely that’s a no-brainer? 

If the majority think it’s unfair, as the poll suggests then why not abolish it (as we did with dog licences) and just fund out of taxation as I have mooted

He is - bless him

[Gordon Bennett]

I wonder how long transmitting via the airwaves will go on. At some point we'll all presumably  have to "cut the cord" and receive all broadcast TV via the Internet, ie like say, Netflix.
At that point it will be easy to "unsubscribe" to the Beeb.

Already today I'm baffled why Sky persists with dishes and has programme schedules, it doesn't make sense???

[Blackpool Rock]

I wonder how long transmitting via the airwaves will go on. At some point we'll all presumably  have to "cut the cord" and receive all broadcast TV via the Internet, ie like say, Netflix.
At that point it will be easy to "unsubscribe" to the Beeb.

Already today I'm baffled why Sky persists with dishes and has programme schedules, it doesn't make sense???

Sky announced a few years ago they were doing away with dishes if you didn't want them

External Link/Members Only

[yandex]

But isn’t the usual argument, couldn’t it be funded out of advertising like other tv stations. “Greed and corporate muscle” — unfortunately, and political persuasions aside — turns out to be more or less the same as market competition, doesn’t it?

There's probably a whole new thread on this alone but the market competition offered by the likes of Sky, BT and Virgin might offer untold riches for a select few but is destroying a lot of sport as it used to be. Look at the fiasco of football's recent European Super Rich League.

It might just be natural evolution, and having a National Broadcaster in the mould of the BBC may well become a thing of the past, but I think it's something worth hanging on to. Sadly, it's become very much a political victim in recent years which rather detracts from some of the excellent work - the news coverage is still first class compared with the rest.

[SamOmar]

If you watch live TV / bbc iplayer often in your home you have to pay it and if you live in a house where access is easier it's not worth the aggravation of dodging inspectors in my opinion. This is why we pay at our family home.

I however live in a large apartment block and don't watch any live TV, I stick to youtube / netflix / itv hub and therefore do not require a licence. I have found that after 1 or 2 months of you telling them that it is not required they stop even sending letters.

[chrishornx]

watching our girl Raducanu live in the US Open Tennis final is worth the licence fee on it's own

[Marmalade]

There's probably a whole new thread on this alone but the market competition offered by the likes of Sky, BT and Virgin might offer untold riches for a select few but is destroying a lot of sport as it used to be. Look at the fiasco of football's recent European Super Rich League.

It might just be natural evolution, and having a National Broadcaster in the mould of the BBC may well become a thing of the past, but I think it's something worth hanging on to. Sadly, it's become very much a political victim in recent years which rather detracts from some of the excellent work - the news coverage is still first class compared with the rest.

I don’t watch much sport. I realised the BBC wasn’t offering full Olympics snd I signed up to a month’s Eurosport. But I miss out on a lot of football as I don’t have the appropriate subscriptions. I agree about the news coverage. Sky news (online) seems to me similarly equivalent for headlines but I find the BBC has excellent breadth and a big range of articles. The website is also quite impressive.

[Blackpool Rock]

I don’t watch much sport. I realised the BBC wasn’t offering full Olympics snd I signed up to a month’s Eurosport. But I miss out on a lot of football as I don’t have the appropriate subscriptions. I agree about the news coverage. Sky news (online) seems to me similarly equivalent for headlines but I find the BBC has excellent breadth and a big range of articles. The website is also quite impressive.

TV is largely about ratings, more so for the commercial channels whose basic existence relies on viewing numbers being high to get the advertising and higher ratings means certain slots can charge more.

Look at the different types of programs that the BBC and ITV tend to favour -
ITV programs IMO cater for the lowest common denominator and have a bias for programs such as X Factor and Love Island etc, personally i'd rather stab my own eyes out than watch that vacuous shit 

The BBC do try to jump on board with a "Me too" show when they see ITV have got a good rating show but it's the mainstay of ITV
The BBC also do documentaries and history programs which possibly don't get great viewing figures but that's more my type of viewing, also things like the proms and some opera which i'm not personally interested in but again wouldn't make it onto ITV who solely need to chase ratings.

I think it's quite telling however regarding the quality of programming when you compare a direct like for like, the Euro final was shown live on both the BBC and ITV however the viewing figures are quite shocking with around 6 Million watching on ITV and over 4 times that number at 25 Million watching on the BBC. 
Surely it can't be that so many people didn't want to watch the adverts so opted for the Beeb  I'd put it down to better pundits and commentators on the BBC, I know many love to slate Lineker & co but at least they seem to know their stuff compared to the ITV clowns

BBC also gets far more viewers for news coverage compared to ITV, why as they're reporting the same stories 

[Marmalade]

Good report Blackpool Rock. Nothing I disagree with there. Between BBC and ITV, BBC offers a far superior service in my opinion, both in breadth and quality of programmes and (as I mostly watch it on iPlayer) on smooth, hi quality connection and staying connected. ITV is half-baked by comparison and obviously suffering economically. Channel 4 is better comparison as they have provided quality, and as per their remit, an ‘alternative’ — though I find their alternative too far left wing for my taste at times.

The one benefit of the BBC is that we sort of try to see it as the ‘official’ channel while semi-independent from the government. The World Service is a valuable British institution and I’m happy to pay for the Arts even if they are not ‘popular’. I’d like to see more serious programmes that are not pitched at viewing figures. My vote for Channel 4 was partly for its selective support for the British film industry and secondly for its news programme with Jon Snow. My vote against it is when Jon Snow came out as openly far left wing which is unacceptable for a news programme lead. It also rather assumes that the BBC is further right of centre than I think it is.

I can’t argue sports as I only tune in for occasional things that take my fancy. I was shocked that no terrestrial tv channel was giving adequate coverage of the Olympics and that I would have to pay a sub to Eurosport (which I did).

I pretty centrist on this. I oppose the license fee but want to see quality television. That includes Arts, good drama that isn’t falling over itself to be politically correct, unbiased news (all the terrestrial news channels could be vastly improved in my opinion) and important events — which include the World Cup and the Olympics. The question of paying for it I believe is only partly about money: more fundamental is values. Channel 4 used to have values. The BBC seems to say (parodying Oscar Wilde) “We’ve got some values, and if you or the government don’t like them we’ve got some others”.

[Matrix]

People like to say the BBc shows lots of quality content, but how many of them would pay even a fraction of a monthly SKY like fee for it?

[Blackpool Rock]

People like to say the BBc shows lots of quality content, but how many of them would pay even a fraction of a monthly SKY like fee for it?

Surely that's the whole point of the thread, we do 

[PumpDump]

Why should the rest of us be forced to subsidies programmes which appeal to a minority? The licence fee should be ditched and BBC made a pay as you go service like the way NowTV is run. The guys who are happy to pay for the Arts can pay an extra subscription to view the stuff most others are not interested in.

[lamboman]

Why should the rest of us be forced to subsidies programmes which appeal to a minority?

It's not a minority though like it or not.

[chrishornx]

It's not a minority though like it or not.

correct and nobody is forced to pay

[PumpDump]

It's not a minority though like it or not.

It's certainly not profitable to produce otherwise it would be carried on the other channels.

[mrwhite]

I enjoy the BBC's output and have no issue paying for it.

I also know people who have been prosecuted for non compliance and been fined. The thing is the £1k fine only adds up to about 6 years of not paying and they hadn't had a licence for more than 10, so even after paying the fine they are still ahead in the long run.

[Blackpool Rock]

I enjoy the BBC's output and have no issue paying for it.

I also know people who have been prosecuted for non compliance and been fined. The thing is the £1k fine only adds up to about 6 years of not paying and they hadn't had a licence for more than 10, so even after paying the fine they are still ahead in the long run.

There was also talk of decriminalising not having a licence as apparently "It's not fair"  Not sure if it did happen or still being looked at
Watch what happens when they do that and suddenly a wave of people stop paying for their licence.
Of course they will claim it won't increase the number of people evading payment just like they claimed not having to display a tax disc on your car wouldn't increase people not paying that, how wrong can you be     

[Marmalade]

It's certainly not profitable to produce otherwise it would be carried on the other channels.

That might be a justification for a BBC subsidy, whether in the form of the licence fee or directly from taxation. If stuff like the fine arts or other more refined work (including drama) is not protected, everything risks being watered down to STV-type game shows and similar lowest common denominator. (I know that sounds a bit righteous or even autocratic but if so I can live with that too.)

They might be applying the same sort of thing to justify ‘inclusiveness’ though I do think that is slightly harder to justify — even if laudable in its aims.