Do you pay your TV licence fee?
Discussion
funinhounslow said:
Why don’t they just scramble their TV signal and require licence holders to input their licence number to access their world leading broadcasting?
Greg Dyke, then BBC Director General deliberately stopped this happening when the terrestial network switched from analogue to digital to protect the licence fee. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/17/broa...The only way out at this point would be to make everyone buy a set top box that descrambles the signal.
It won't happen will it ? people just wouldn't bother, which will just force the switch to funding via general taxation.
Kermit power said:
CoolHands said:
It’s irrelevant to the whole population having to purchase a tv licence when they don’t watch it live. It’s no different from any other type of programming they make so why bring it up? Why not bring up the fact they make news programmes, or science programmes, or homes under the hammer.
Is it really that hard to understand??? 
A lot of the educational programmes (which includes a lot of the science programmes of course) would not be economically viable without the licence fee. Crap like Homes Under The Hammer would.
Amazon Prime put out a lot of cool stuff, e.g. 'The Boys' - wouldnt be made unless they could sell enough of it.
Netflix the same, cant think of an example but lets say 'Breaking Bad' (Originally from AMC) which again, needed to be economically viable on the original network.
Sounds a bit socalist Mr. Kermit... something completely unrealistic being propped up by the state...
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
CoolHands said:
It’s irrelevant to the whole population having to purchase a tv licence when they don’t watch it live. It’s no different from any other type of programming they make so why bring it up? Why not bring up the fact they make news programmes, or science programmes, or homes under the hammer.
Is it really that hard to understand??? A lot of the educational programmes (which includes a lot of the science programmes of course) would not be economically viable without the licence fee. Crap like Homes Under The Hammer would.
Amazon Prime put out a lot of cool stuff, e.g. 'The Boys' - wouldnt be made unless they could sell enough of it.
Netflix the same, cant think of an example but lets say 'Breaking Bad' (Originally from AMC) which again, needed to be economically viable on the original network.
Sounds a bit socalist Mr. Kermit... something completely unrealistic being propped up by the state...
Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
Kermit power said:
By that logic, we should shut down state schools then? After all, if people want an education for their kids, they'll pay for it, won't they?
Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
The TV licence isn't paid by the taxpayer. Other channels create educational programs so why should the licence money go exclusivly to the BBC ?Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
CoolHands said:
It’s irrelevant to the whole population having to purchase a tv licence when they don’t watch it live. It’s no different from any other type of programming they make so why bring it up? Why not bring up the fact they make news programmes, or science programmes, or homes under the hammer.
Is it really that hard to understand??? A lot of the educational programmes (which includes a lot of the science programmes of course) would not be economically viable without the licence fee. Crap like Homes Under The Hammer would.
Amazon Prime put out a lot of cool stuff, e.g. 'The Boys' - wouldnt be made unless they could sell enough of it.
Netflix the same, cant think of an example but lets say 'Breaking Bad' (Originally from AMC) which again, needed to be economically viable on the original network.
Sounds a bit socalist Mr. Kermit... something completely unrealistic being propped up by the state...
Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
OK, you got me there, totally equivalent
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
CoolHands said:
It’s irrelevant to the whole population having to purchase a tv licence when they don’t watch it live. It’s no different from any other type of programming they make so why bring it up? Why not bring up the fact they make news programmes, or science programmes, or homes under the hammer.
Is it really that hard to understand??? A lot of the educational programmes (which includes a lot of the science programmes of course) would not be economically viable without the licence fee. Crap like Homes Under The Hammer would.
Amazon Prime put out a lot of cool stuff, e.g. 'The Boys' - wouldnt be made unless they could sell enough of it.
Netflix the same, cant think of an example but lets say 'Breaking Bad' (Originally from AMC) which again, needed to be economically viable on the original network.
Sounds a bit socalist Mr. Kermit... something completely unrealistic being propped up by the state...
Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
OK, you got me there, totally equivalent
Other organisations certainly make educational content of course, but I've never seen anything that comes remotely close to what the BBC do.
The world has changed, and like the royal mail, the bbc hasnt kept up.
When there were 3 channels only, it made scence that if you had a tv, you would be watching the bbc. So the tv licence made scence.
Now tho there are countless other ways to watch tv, most have netflix etc, and pay to use them, dont pay and you dont get them.
Market forces at work.
The bbc hasnt upped its game to compeat with these other services, so relies on the licence, and sends threatening letters to anyone.
They should make it pay to watch, and if they cant make that pay , then thats their fault not the publics.
If the product is good enough then people will pay for it, we shouldnt be proping up a failing buisiness with what is effectivly a tax.
When there were 3 channels only, it made scence that if you had a tv, you would be watching the bbc. So the tv licence made scence.
Now tho there are countless other ways to watch tv, most have netflix etc, and pay to use them, dont pay and you dont get them.
Market forces at work.
The bbc hasnt upped its game to compeat with these other services, so relies on the licence, and sends threatening letters to anyone.
They should make it pay to watch, and if they cant make that pay , then thats their fault not the publics.
If the product is good enough then people will pay for it, we shouldnt be proping up a failing buisiness with what is effectivly a tax.
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
CoolHands said:
It’s irrelevant to the whole population having to purchase a tv licence when they don’t watch it live. It’s no different from any other type of programming they make so why bring it up? Why not bring up the fact they make news programmes, or science programmes, or homes under the hammer.
Is it really that hard to understand??? A lot of the educational programmes (which includes a lot of the science programmes of course) would not be economically viable without the licence fee. Crap like Homes Under The Hammer would.
Amazon Prime put out a lot of cool stuff, e.g. 'The Boys' - wouldnt be made unless they could sell enough of it.
Netflix the same, cant think of an example but lets say 'Breaking Bad' (Originally from AMC) which again, needed to be economically viable on the original network.
Sounds a bit socalist Mr. Kermit... something completely unrealistic being propped up by the state...
Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
OK, you got me there, totally equivalent
Other organisations certainly make educational content of course, but I've never seen anything that comes remotely close to what the BBC do.
Apologies if ive misread your point.
Kermit power said:
Other organisations certainly make educational content of course, but I've never seen anything that comes remotely close to what the BBC do.
Well this seems to be the main justification for the licence fee now - I think the BBC is great therefore everyone should chip in But as noted above the world has moved on since the BBC was the only broadcaster when it made sense that those with tellies paid for it.
I got rid of my licence in 2008 following "Sachsgate" and haven't missed it in the slightest.
I'm currently subscribing to Apple TV+ and when I've watched all I want to I'll stop my subscription. I won't have to "declare" to Apple that I don't watch Apple TV, they won't write to me threatening to take me to court and Apple TV inspectors won't knock on my door expecting to have a nosey around my property.
Edited by funinhounslow on Monday 29th January 15:58
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
CoolHands said:
It’s irrelevant to the whole population having to purchase a tv licence when they don’t watch it live. It’s no different from any other type of programming they make so why bring it up? Why not bring up the fact they make news programmes, or science programmes, or homes under the hammer.
Is it really that hard to understand??? A lot of the educational programmes (which includes a lot of the science programmes of course) would not be economically viable without the licence fee. Crap like Homes Under The Hammer would.
Amazon Prime put out a lot of cool stuff, e.g. 'The Boys' - wouldnt be made unless they could sell enough of it.
Netflix the same, cant think of an example but lets say 'Breaking Bad' (Originally from AMC) which again, needed to be economically viable on the original network.
Sounds a bit socalist Mr. Kermit... something completely unrealistic being propped up by the state...
Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
OK, you got me there, totally equivalent
Other organisations certainly make educational content of course, but I've never seen anything that comes remotely close to what the BBC do.
Apologies if ive misread your point.
The only reason we have universal state education is because taxation pays for it, and the only reason we have things like GCSE Bitesize and other BBC educational content available to all at anything like the extent we do is because the licence fee pays for it.
Unlike Netflix, the BBC has a charter commitment to educating which couldn't be met if everything had to be commercially viable.
Just as a reminder, this whole part of the thread started in response to someone asking what we'd miss if the BBC wasn't funded by the licence.
As for "some" teachers recommending it - not just for science, for every subject - I assume you don't have any kids of secondary school age? If you did, you'd know it's recommended by all of them, as it's too valuable a resource to ignore.
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
KAgantua said:
Kermit power said:
CoolHands said:
It’s irrelevant to the whole population having to purchase a tv licence when they don’t watch it live. It’s no different from any other type of programming they make so why bring it up? Why not bring up the fact they make news programmes, or science programmes, or homes under the hammer.
Is it really that hard to understand??? A lot of the educational programmes (which includes a lot of the science programmes of course) would not be economically viable without the licence fee. Crap like Homes Under The Hammer would.
Amazon Prime put out a lot of cool stuff, e.g. 'The Boys' - wouldnt be made unless they could sell enough of it.
Netflix the same, cant think of an example but lets say 'Breaking Bad' (Originally from AMC) which again, needed to be economically viable on the original network.
Sounds a bit socalist Mr. Kermit... something completely unrealistic being propped up by the state...
Or maybe we could go with the notion that both add more value to the taxpayer than they cost us?
OK, you got me there, totally equivalent
Other organisations certainly make educational content of course, but I've never seen anything that comes remotely close to what the BBC do.
Apologies if ive misread your point.
The only reason we have universal state education is because taxation pays for it, and the only reason we have things like GCSE Bitesize and other BBC educational content available to all at anything like the extent we do is because the licence fee pays for it.
Unlike Netflix, the BBC has a charter commitment to educating which couldn't be met if everything had to be commercially viable.
Just as a reminder, this whole part of the thread started in response to someone asking what we'd miss if the BBC wasn't funded by the licence.
As for "some" teachers recommending it - not just for science, for every subject - I assume you don't have any kids of secondary school age? If you did, you'd know it's recommended by all of them, as it's too valuable a resource to ignore.
Sorry, can you point out where I said that please?
We were talking specifically about the BBC (A state broadcaster) and some output it had made (Television programmes)
You seem determined to bring state education (Which I agree with you is not socialist at all) into it?
Genuinely think this is going to end up in a mini Post Office like sh show as what TV Licensing declare in writing as being an illegal activity and threaten people with prosecution for often isn't consistent, accurate or based on the actual legislation. They purposefully mislead and overstep, in writing, and may have convicted people based on that. Capita must be performance based so lever...?
Wacky Racer said:
Yes, it's less than £4.00 a week ffs!
It's not about the cost, it's about their values no longer aligning with many of the British viewers. It's about essentially funding an organisation and their smug, sneering employees, who brazenly and visibly hate a huge proportion of the British people. And it's the fact that much of what they produce is low-quality, preachy, propaganda, rather than entertaining or educating. There are so many other sources these days, that the licence fee is an anachronism. The BBC, like any other broadcaster, should sink or swim on it's own merits, and not rely on coercion and the threat of prosecution to survive.YMMV.
funinhounslow said:
I'm currently subscribing to Apple TV+ and when I've watched all I want to I'll stop my subscription. I won't have to "declare" to Apple that I don't watch Apple TV, they won't write to me threatening to take me to court and Apple TV inspectors won't knock on my door expecting to have a nosey around my property.
No, but your Apple TV+ won't work when you stop subscribing. LimaDelta said:
It's not about the cost, it's about their values no longer aligning with many of the British viewers. It's about essentially funding an organisation and their smug, sneering employees, who brazenly and visibly hate a huge proportion of the British people. And it's the fact that much of what they produce is low-quality, preachy, propaganda, rather than entertaining or educating. There are so many other sources these days, that the licence fee is an anachronism. The BBC, like any other broadcaster, should sink or swim on it's own merits, and not rely on coercion and the threat of prosecution to survive.
YMMV.
Couldn't agree more. We didn't bother getting a TV licence when we moved house, and a huge chunk of that reason why is outlined above.YMMV.
If I want to watch anything there is a lifetime's worth of free content on Youtube alone, and Mrs Shed is prefectly happy watching the (non-i-Player) catchup services.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff