Do you pay your TV licence fee?

Author
Discussion

XCP

16,947 posts

229 months

Friday 8th December 2023
quotequote all
Nolan who?

richhead

911 posts

12 months

Friday 8th December 2023
quotequote all
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Cotty said:
5pen said:
Everyone’s definition of value for money will vary, but the concept is that an independent public service broadcaster is, in theory, a “good” thing and that whether or not you consume content from it, the general population will benefit.
Even if I was to agree, which I don't, if you don't pay the licence how is BBC preventing you from watching documentaries, news, educational programs, entertainment etc on other channels in any way beneficial to them or any one else?

Take Le Mans for example, its one of the few if only sports I would watch live. BBC don't show it, so me watching it on a different channel has no impact on them whatsoever.
Exactly.

I watched the RWC on ITV. Absolutely no benefit to the BBC at all. Yet I still had to pay them to watch something they had no input to.

If the BBC wants to keep the licence fee, put it all behind a pay wall like Netflix, Prime, Disco+, etc. Then we can't watch it unless we pay.
They won't put the BBC behind a pay wall, as they know full well that they will raise less money than from the licence. I for one wouldn't subscribe.

XCP

16,947 posts

229 months

Friday 8th December 2023
quotequote all
You didn't pay the BBC to watch something they didn't show.
You paid for the opportunity to watch their output. The fact that you chose not to is neither here nor there.
I pay to tax my car. The fact that I chose not to drive it every day is my choice. I could if I so wished.

Cotty

39,613 posts

285 months

Friday 8th December 2023
quotequote all
XCP said:
You didn't pay the BBC to watch something they didn't show.
You paid for the opportunity to watch their output. The fact that you chose not to is neither here nor there.
That is not the correct understanding of the TV licence. You have to pay the licence to watch any live TV on any channel not just the BBC.

XCP said:
I pay to tax my car. The fact that I chose not to drive it every day is my choice. I could if I so wished.
To take your analogy, the BBC would require you to tax their car so you can drive your own.


Edited by Cotty on Friday 8th December 18:23

JuanCarlosFandango

7,814 posts

72 months

Friday 8th December 2023
quotequote all
NotEvenWensleydale said:
100% agreed. I'm a fervent believer in the merits of having an independent, publically-funded broadcaster. It's something of which we should be immensely proud, and I do not count myself as one of the BBC's biggest apologists.
They've done a job on you! Independent, publicly funded my left foot. It's a state broadcaster part funded by a tax on televisions enforced through confidence tricks and bullying.

Scabutz

7,655 posts

81 months

Friday 8th December 2023
quotequote all
Wife and recently separated. I took Sky with me and watch live TV all the time, a fair bit of BBC stuff. HIGNFY, Mastermind, Only Connect, University Challenge. I transfered the TV license to my new gaff.

She has filled in the online form to say they don't need it. They don't. They only watch Netflix and Disney+ . I'm not sure the kids even know live TV exists. Will they get a knock at the door or just letters? There is still a Sky dish but it's true that I've taken the box and transferred the account

LuS1fer

41,150 posts

246 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
NotEvenWensleydale said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
They've done a job on you! Independent, publicly funded my left foot. It's a state broadcaster part funded by a tax on televisions enforced through confidence tricks and bullying.
Of course it is rolleyes
Kind of is...

Piginapoke

4,771 posts

186 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
I happily pay my £12pm, or whatever it is, to watch and listen to some very good quality programmes without adverts. I have Sky, Netflix and Disney etc but it's all dross by comparison.

Fry and Laurie called this out 20 years ago

https://youtu.be/6T2zUEiVQU4?si=fwgnq53MgCAOFB2w

5pen

1,892 posts

207 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
Cotty said:
5pen said:
Everyone’s definition of value for money will vary, but the concept is that an independent public service broadcaster is, in theory, a “good” thing and that whether or not you consume content from it, the general population will benefit.
Even if I was to agree, which I don't, if you don't pay the licence how is BBC preventing you from watching documentaries, news, educational programs, entertainment etc on other channels in any way beneficial to them or any one else?

Take Le Mans for example, its one of the few if only sports I would watch live. BBC don't show it, so me watching it on a different channel has no impact on them whatsoever.
I said in my first post on this thread that the licence model has been overtaken by developments in delivery platforms and that it could do with reforming. I agree that the situation you describe is illogical.

The main thrust of my point was that an independent public service broadcaster is a benefit to the nation whether or not you watch it and that comparing the cost of the licence to Netflix, Disney or whoever is not comparable because of the range of content being produced is vastly different.

JuanCarlosFandango

7,814 posts

72 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
The BBCs very existence depends on its charter being renewed by Parliament, and its funding relies on a tax collecting concession.

As for its independence, it may not be directly controlled by the government of the day but this set up keeps it very much in the pocket of the political class. It won't allow anyone to stray too far off message.

All this sentimental drivel about public service broadcasting changes nothing.

flatlandsman

764 posts

8 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
Of course it is not preferable, but neither is listening to ONLY female soccer fans in a phone in when 95% of people attending are men. Clearly a pre planned decision.

This is not obviously a big deal but forced stuff like this annoys people just as much. And to counter your argument, what about people like me who will watch numerous news outlets to gain a balanced view, not everyone sips from only one cup. the problem with the BBC is on certain subjects they are VERY biased, gender quality, females in sport, the environment, yet one some they are neutral. That is what annoys, the imbalance.

They should be entirely balanced,

JuanCarlosFandango

7,814 posts

72 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
NotEvenWensleydale said:
If it’s not controlled by the state, it’s not a state broadcaster, is it? So, we’re in agreement.

It’s true that the government can and does exert political influence over the BBC, but that’s true of every media outlet. The difference with the BBC is that they have a constitutional obligation to resist this outside influence.

The BBC can be biased, no question, but it’s not reliably pro-government. Remember when it got a load of flak for being anti-Brexit when the government edict was, “Get Brexit done.”?

Public service broadcasting is not a panacea, but it does guarantee a certain level of quality and impartiality. Leave TV news up to commercial influence and you get GB News and FOX News. I despair for anyone who thinks that would be preferable.
There's more to the state than simply whoever happens to be in number 10 at the time. Brexit is a pretty good example. The elected government(s) were committed to it as a result of their inability to win their own games but the whole political establishment - the civil service, the leadership of the main parties, the unions and so on were all dead against it and so was the BBC.


markiii

3,631 posts

195 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
which is the problem, the BBC shouldn't have had a position

BAMoFo

746 posts

257 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
I cancelled my TV licence a couple of years ago because we only watch YouTube and Netflix. I stopped watching and reading the news back in 2006 and, in retrospect, should have stopped watching live TV and cancelled the licence then.

JuanCarlosFandango

7,814 posts

72 months

Saturday 9th December 2023
quotequote all
Yes, I hardly ever even watch current TV. Never mind live. I often find that whatever great series or show I "must watch" is completely forgotten about after 5 years. If people are still talking about it after that time then I might give it a go. I doubt if I end up watching 20% of what I would otherwise.

Ken Figenus

5,714 posts

118 months

Friday 19th January
quotequote all
tegwin said:
Morality and decency is a two way street.

If you threaten me with legal action for not buying your service I’m going to ignore you as I don’t like your attitude and arrogance. I don’t do business with bullies.

If you sent me a nice glossy leaflet explaining all the benefits of the thing you’re trying to sell and make it nice and easy for me to sign up then I probably would.

I’ve had endless threat letters over the years and not a single information sales leaflet from the bbc…. Netflix, Amazon etc all advertise their services….. it’s time the BBC loose their arrogant entitlement and lay out their sales pitch like everyone else….

Well said - they are like the plague over a licence for a house of a deceased. Then they want to datamine you and log and track an individual non resident to tell them the house is empty - on your bike and just keep making the silly threats....

Black Belt Barrister has a lot to say about their misrepresentation and purposefully misleading wording.

I also think its a reach to make you pay for 'live tv' that isn't BBC. If I watch ad funded 'live' programming on say ITV then what has that to do with the BBC?

I do pay it though as I currently still decide I want their services - even if it is at risk of imprisonment if I don't and don't tell them I don't!.

So outdated...

James6112

4,411 posts

29 months

Friday 19th January
quotequote all
Jiebo said:
Mid 30s here, I haven’t paid for it since I moved into my own place at 25. I don’t intend to ever pay for it.

I don’t watch scheduled live TV as it’s outdated and 99% of the content is utter garbage.
Always paid it, great value
BBC services are great.

99% of the rest is utter garbage wink

Mars

8,728 posts

215 months

Friday 19th January
quotequote all
TVL has just "reset" the letters. I'm back to the original one which is "level 1" threats, so I've decided to keep them all from now on and make a stupid pointless archive for them just to see how they compare over the next 18 months.

DanL

6,223 posts

266 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
Well, I had my “it’s time to check” letter, where they ask me to reconfirm that I don’t need a licence. Did that in 30 seconds on line, and don’t expect to be bothered by them for another couple of years.

However, their letter is a little misleading…



In the letter it refers to live “content” through services such as YouTube.

When you visit the website, they’re rather more specific - it’s live TV via YouTube, not live “content”. Their letter rather suggests that if you (or your kids) happen to watch a live stream on YouTube of a content creator you need a licence though, which is a bit cheeky.


romft123

339 posts

5 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
If I HAVE to pay to watch the BBC , why cant I watch it wherever I like then?