Cancelling a TV licence - are they taking the ****?

[surfymark]

sinizter said:

I like the River Cottage series on Channel 4.
I like many other American series aired on other channels.
I like movies on Film 4.
I do not contribute to the cost of making any of them.

Why should I be forced to pay for the production costs of one channel ?

Don't roll out the ad-supported argument - I don't actually watch any ads on any of these programs. And couldn't care less if BBC opted to begin showing ads and not forcing people to pay, in effect, a subscription fee.

But you are supporting the cost of making those by agreeing to have ads in them. Of course this system is not really working as everyone fast-forwards the ads, but take the advertising away and how do you fund TV?

Personally I don't want ads on the BBC and happy to pay the licence fee for this. If you don't want to pay the licence fee then don't, but don't expect to watch stuff completely for free with a clear conscience. It all has to be paid for somehow.

M

[surfymark]

Funk said:

I agree. Would surfymark willingly pay £12 a month to subsidise Sky if he didn't watch it? No, of course not. I made the point earlier that I watch so little of the BBC's output that I don't believe I get VFM from it, nor would I miss it if I didn't have it. They can turn iPlayer off for me if they wish, it wouldn't cause me to suddenly decide to pay the licence fee to receive it. I'm not desperate to watch the handful of programmes such as TG and PMQs. I'll quite happily do without.

In a digital world, there's no reason why they can't prevent people from watching certain channels or having access to particular websites. Want to make the BBC only available to licence payers? Fine, I have no problem with that - turn off the channels digitally like Sky did with my Sky box. Don't want me to have access to the iPlayer service because I don't have a licence? No problem, issue a PIN with the licence fee that you must input into iPlayer in order to access it. However, why should the other channels suffer because I choose not to pay the BBC (which is what TVL is)? I would now be illegally watching ITV, Channel 4 etc because I've chosen not to pay a TV tax. I can watch them online, and they make me watch adverts in order to cover their costs.

The TV tax is out-dated and unnecessary; the only reason it hasn't been overhauled is because the BBC knows that the £3.5bn it receives each year would tumble as people - if given the option - would choose to decline to receive those channels.

The thing is that the BBC is a public nationalised service that happens to be paid for by a tax. At which point do you stop. Why do I pay tax that goes towards putting people in Council Houses? Why do people with no children pay tax that goes towards schools etc? Because that is what our representatives have voted for.

If your argument for not paying a tax is that you don't use the service that this tax is used for then you cannot then, with a clear conscience, use that service at all. Yes it is legal but really that is a loophole. The argument that you can save some money by changing your viewing habits but not actually stopping using the service is pretty ridiculous really.

Sky is a completely different thing as it is a commercial venture and is designed to make money. The BBC is really just covering costs, there is no profit here. I do in fact have Sky (although am thinking of cancelling it) and it is costing me a lot lot more than £12/month and is nowhere near the quality of the BBC (plus it has adverts).

If you want the BBC to turn commercial then start a campaign or something. Personally I am very happy with the way it is and I imagine a lot of other people are too (otherwise I think things would have changed by now).

M

[Funk]

surfymark said:

Personally I don't want ads on the BBC and happy to pay the licence fee for this. If you don't want to pay the licence fee then don't, but don't expect to watch stuff completely for free with a clear conscience. It all has to be paid for somehow.

M

Surely a conscience should only be 'un-clear' if there is any wrong-doing; at present - whether you agree or not - it is fine to watch any 'catch-up' service including iPlayer even if you choose not to have a TV licence. Would you say that I should not listen to BBC radio if I don't have a TV licence? After all, it costs to produce, yet I'm allowed to listen to it not just after it's broadcast, but live (unlike TV). Is listening to BBC radio also 'morally wrong' in your eyes? Remember that the BBC also broadcasts its radio output around the world online too, and those listeners aren't paying a licence fee.

I refer you back to my earlier point; there is little I wish to watch, and if it were removed (ie. iPlayer made illegal to view without a licence) then I would not watch it.

surfymark said:

The thing is that the BBC is a public nationalised service that happens to be paid for by a tax. At which point do you stop. Why do I pay tax that goes towards putting people in Council Houses? Why do people with no children pay tax that goes towards schools etc? Because that is what our representatives have voted for.

A TV licence is not - yet - a mandatory requirement. Income tax etc are. If you had the choice not to support layabout chavs who were simply milking the system, would you do so? I know I would.

surfymark said:

If your argument for not paying a tax is that you don't use the service that this tax is used for then you cannot then, with a clear conscience, use that service at all. Yes it is legal but really that is a loophole. The argument that you can save some money by changing your viewing habits but not actually stopping using the service is pretty ridiculous really.

See my point in my first paragraph re. radio.. Does your accountant encourage you to maximise or minimise your taxes by using legal procedures? Would you say that someone who practices tax avoidance should not be allowed to use a hospital or send their children to school? If by changing a habit I can legally save money, why should that be wrong? I keep returning to this fact, but there really is only about 40 hours of BBC output annually that I really like to watch - TG and PMQs. I already watch PMQs on catch-up as I'm at work in the day, so it's really only TG that I would watch live. Can you not see why I'm a little perplexed as to why I'm paying the same as someone who watches thousands of hours of BBC output annually? The quality of content has declined so severely over the years, perhaps people 'switching off' their payments and their viewing will send a message that they're not making anything a lot of us want to watch.

surfymark said:

Sky is a completely different thing as it is a commercial venture and is designed to make money. The BBC is really just covering costs, there is no profit here. I do in fact have Sky (although am thinking of cancelling it) and it is costing me a lot lot more than £12/month and is nowhere near the quality of the BBC (plus it has adverts).

If you want the BBC to turn commercial then start a campaign or something. Personally I am very happy with the way it is and I imagine a lot of other people are too (otherwise I think things would have changed by now).

M

I would have no issue with 95% of the BBC being commercialised (indeed, a large chunk of it already is as it sells and buys TV programmes around the world). I would advocate the retention of one, single ad-free channel for public service broadcasting and news. This should be paid from general taxes, rather than the costly process that collects money at present. As long as it were genuinely impartial, I would have no issue with it. The rest can fend for itself on merit; if enough people want to watch it, then it will succeed standing on its own two feet.

The BBC and powers-that-be know that it would not be able to do so, and as such they plough ahead with the outdated 'blanket' licence fee system through Capita. I am glad that it is still optional.

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 13th December 16:22

[wolf1]

OP I've been through this and it's not much of a problem to be honest. I cancelled the direct debit and told them on the phone I no longer watch live television broadcasts. Plenty of letters have turned up but rather than bother to read them they just get filed straight in the bin (they have the tv licensing logo on the front). Periodically they start sending another batch of letters and again they go into the bin. I've had notes popped through the door to say an enforcement officer has visited but I wasn't at home etc. On one occasion I actually was at home when one of then turned up. The bloke was pleasant enough so I had no problem showing him my television that was only connected to a PS3. He was happy enough and since then I haven't had a letter etc from them.

I can't see the reason behind people saying they would never let them in etc as it will only arouse suspicion and they will keep sending letters and knocking on your door. Fair enough if the person gets arsey on the doorstep but if they are reasonable then I see no reason to be an arse with them as lets face it when someone acts like a dick towards you whilst all you are doing is your job it's pretty stty and for what exactly. I was brought up better than that so see no reason to prolong the messing about when all I need to do is let them have a look. Obviously you won't have a sky/freeview box or tv antenna cable attatched to the back of any set.

[Jasandjules]

wolf1 said:

I was brought up better than that so see no reason to prolong the messing about when all I need to do is let them have a look.

Hi there,

I have no lawful reason to be allowed into your house, mind if I come round and have a nose about?

[sinizter]

Jasandjules said:

wolf1 said:

I was brought up better than that so see no reason to prolong the messing about when all I need to do is let them have a look.

Hi there,

I have no lawful reason to be allowed into your house, mind if I come round and have a nose about?

They have no legal reason to be there - and that is why I will not let them in. The same as I won't be letting in people who are trying to sell me broadband, conservatories or electricity/gas.

[wolf1]

sinizter said:

Jasandjules said:

wolf1 said:

I was brought up better than that so see no reason to prolong the messing about when all I need to do is let them have a look.

Hi there,

I have no lawful reason to be allowed into your house, mind if I come round and have a nose about?

They have no legal reason to be there - and that is why I will not let them in. The same as I won't be letting in people who are trying to sell me broadband, conservatories or electricity/gas.

If you don't want to let them in that's fine. I just took the view that as soon as they realised that I wasn't set up for tv then there would be no more mail or knocks on the door. I dislike junk mail and people at the door that I don't know as much as anyone else, so 5 minutes has reduced a section of that.

Jasandjules said:

mind if I come round and have a nose about?

Of course you can. Just give the estate agent a call and they will show you around. Asking price would be nice but I'm sure I could cut a deal for a PHer

[durbster]

There is another point to this. The way British TV is funded means our overall output is the best in the world. Even if you don't watch the BBC, the fact it exists means the other channels must raise their game.

I'm sure anyone who's lived outside the UK for a length of time can appreciate just how good we have it in the UK. Absolutely everyone is catered for and ratings graveyard topics like politics have to be aired, which is good for society. An entirely commercial system produces an astonishing amount of drivel because there's no obligation of quality, only ratings.

[sinizter]

If almost no one wants to watch, for example, political discussions, what is the point if airing it just because they have to?

That's the same kind of waste everyone despises in the NHS and other public services, but is acceptable here?

[durbster]

You don't think it's important to have serious political coverage on TV?

I lived abroad during an election and the TV coverage was embarrassing. It consisted of news channels competing with each other for sensationalist stories and scoops, with nothing of actual policy or debate. It was like watching Politics as described by ITV2.

That's your alternative.

[Funk]

Or the 'other' alternative - which is to watch none of it. And the route I'm happy to take.

Using the political debates as an example, I don't see how they offered any real 'substance' to any of the positions; arguably it's what lost CMD the election as it gave disproportionate airtime and visibility to a party that was very much a minority up to then. Without those televised debates, it's entirely possible the Tories might have won an outright victory.

Certainly I don't think the debates were useful or informative; it was just a sequence of soundbites and mild snarkiness.

[sinizter]

durbster said:

You don't think it's important to have serious political coverage on TV?

It was merely an example. Replace it with whatever you like.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that all political parties and politicians are equally crap - and no matter what manifesto they are elected on the basis of, they will all end up doing the same things within 6-12 months of being elected.

I now abstain from voting.

Therefore, to me having serious political discussions on TV is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

[moanthebairns]

I rarely watch bbc and ill probably never watch bbc now the F1 has switched to sky but what really annoys me is that fact you have to pay 6 months license fee up front.

When I got mines I was presented with two options.

Pay advance in full each year.
Or
Pay each month. But you have to pay 6 months first so 6 x £25 ish then your payments go to £12 ish after.

By law in this country I need to have a license to watch tv. The likely hood is I will have one till I die. So I cant claim back my 6 months tv license when im dead can I?!!

Totally petty but I resent having a tv license sometimes when you see the PISH that’s on.

[eybic]

They have what is called implied access which means they can legally knock on your door the same as the postie, you can remove this right by mail telling them you revoke their right to implied access and any attempt to attend the property will be classed as trespass (?sp?) They then have no legal right to come to your property without some sort of court order which will not be granted unless they have hard proof you are watching TV which they cannot get without attending the property.

The above was info I have read on a few websites and to the best of my knowledge is correct.

[durbster]

sinizter said:

Therefore, to me having serious political discussions on TV is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Whether you like it or not is an irrelevance. My point is having an obligation to produce intelligent TV raises standards across the board.

I honestly think that if you are in a position where such a poxy issue as the TV licence is causing you upset, your life must be going rather well

[sinizter]

durbster said:

sinizter said:

Therefore, to me having serious political discussions on TV is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Whether you like it or not is an irrelevance. My point is having an obligation to produce intelligent TV raises standards across the board.

I honestly think that if you are in a position where such a poxy issue as the TV licence is causing you upset, your life must be going rather well

Perhaps you should read the entire post instead of one line which seems to make you upset ?

Putting a smiley face at the end doesn't make your response any more intelligent.

[durbster]

sinizter said:

Perhaps you should read the entire post instead of one line which seems to make you upset ?

Putting a smiley face at the end doesn't make your response any more intelligent.

You want me to comment on your ignorance of democracy? I didn't see how it was relevant.

And my last line was a general point, not directed at you.