Tv license.......Shambles

[professorhat]

Big fan of the BBC myself too. Worth every penny. Many other countries would love a similar organisation. Like the NHS, it's one of those under appreciated aspects of British life (IMHO). Many people moan about it, but if it were ever to be threatened with closure, there would be national uproar.

 

[Lee H]

Big fan of the BBC myself too. Worth every penny. Many other countries would love a similar organisation. Like the NHS, it's one of those under appreciated aspects of British life (IMHO). Many people moan about it, but if it were ever to be threatened with closure, there would be national uproar.

Indeed there would

 

[John Duncan]

But the BBC makes milions on tv license.

Did you read that in the Daily Mail?

Financial statements here:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_online_2010_11.pdf

Headlines:

Operating costs: £4.789bn

License Fee revenue: £3.513bn

So if it didn't make money from commercial interests, the license fee would go up by about 36%. And the profit that it does make overall is less than three percent, which puts it firmly in not-for-profit territory IMO.

 

[Oldboy]

I'm torn here, the BBC does provide me with some good content but the price and way that the license fee is mandatory does irk me somewhat but there would be a much simpler solution to the license fee and that would be to allow adverts on the BBC so that revenue was generated in that way and therefore lessen the burden on the license fee payer.

I doubt the license fee would ever be abolished even if this was to happen but it would mean that the fee would be reduced as the BBC would be able to generate revenue without the license fee payers propping it up financially. As the BBC normally runs at a loss surerly the opportunity to increase revenue would be welcome, the downside of course would be the adverts but if it meant me paying less for a license then i would be more than willing to see adverts on the BBC.

I don't ever expect to see this happen as the BBC is seen as some sort of untouchable entity by every successive government, how often has a new government (including the current mockery) said they will look at abolishing or cutting the license fee only for it to then increase the annual fee and back track abruptly?

 

[The_Lhc]

As the BBC normally runs at a loss

No it doesn't. It can't. The only money it has is what it gets from the license fee and BBC Worldwide sales, it couldn't run at a loss if it wanted to.

I don't ever expect to see this happen as the BBC is seen as some sort of untouchable entity by every successive government, how often has a new government (including the current mockery) said they will look at abolishing or cutting the license fee only for it to then increase the annual fee and back track abruptly?

Err, well not the current lot for a start, I think the license fee has been frozen for 6 years, which is real-terms cut of around 14% by the 6th year.

 

[Amadeus1756]

Having adverts on BBC would be a real backwards step. Try watching a thriller on one of the commercial channels - all the drama is lost!

In the USA, the BBC is revered because of the programmes that it makes. They have forced all the other broadcasters to improve their output.

 

[The_Lhc]

I don’t deny BBC provides quality output. I don’t even deny that it offers good value for money. I do though, like many others who think like me, object purely to its totalitarian, Orwellian compulsory licence, which people can actually be fined (and imprisoned?) for not paying, whether they watch BBC channels or not. Sorry Professor, but it’s not remotely like the NHS: even if I opted to pay for private healthcare, I don’t object to having a proportion of my income deducted to fund the NHS, which *is* an enviable organisation, and one that every day saves the lives of UK citizens who would otherwise die. The BBC deliberately make sure you can’t get away from them. You buy Sky, it’s on there. You buy cable, it’s on there. It’s not on Sky and cable for some charitable reason; it’s on there purely and solely so that Sky and cable customers can’t opt out of paying. No other reason. There’s not another compulsory tax quite like it.

It's not a license to watch the BBC, it's a license to watch broadcast TV.

Another tax very much like it is Council Tax, where I live we don't have any street lighting and our roads aren't looked after by the council, I don't get a reduction in my Council Tax because of that though. It took us three years to force them to come and collect our rubbish, we didn't get a discount for those three years either.

 

[MajorFubar]

I don’t deny BBC provides quality output.
I don’t even deny that it offers good value for money.
I do though, like many others who think like me, object purely to its totalitarian, Orwellian compulsory licence, which people can actually be fined (and imprisoned?) for not paying, whether they watch BBC channels or not.

Sorry Professor, but it’s not remotely like the NHS: even if I opted to pay for private healthcare, I don’t object to having a proportion of my income deducted to fund the NHS, which *is* an enviable organisation, and one that every day saves the lives of UK citizens who would otherwise die.

The BBC deliberately make sure you can’t get away from them. You buy Sky, it’s on there. You buy cable, it’s on there. It’s on Sky and cable not for some charitable reason; it’s on there purely and solely so that Sky and cable customers can’t opt out of paying a BBC license. No other reason.

It's not even right to call it a TV licence. It's not a TV licence, it's BBC licence. As far as I know, other broadcasters don't get a penny from it. And there’s not another compulsory tax quite like it.

 

[Amadeus1756]

I do though, like many others who think like me, object purely to its totalitarian, Orwellian compulsory licence, which people can actually be fined (and imprisoned?) for not paying, whether they watch BBC channels or not.

Some people don't drive on motorways (which are expensive to build) but it's not really feasible to change their road tax based on the fact that they only use part of the road system.

Sometimes the state needs to protect people from themselves (think flouride in water for example) - a diet of talent shows, soaps and dumbed down quizes wouldn't be good for anyone!

 

[MajorFubar]

It's not a license to watch the BBC, it's a license to watch broadcast TV.

Really? So precisely how much money do ITV and the other so-called independent broadcasters get directly from the licence? I'm pretty sure, though I'm open to being corrected, that it's a big fat £0.00, which is a point I edited my post to include, though fair enough before you typed your reply.

 

[The_Lhc]

It's not a license to watch the BBC, it's a license to watch broadcast TV.

Really? So precisely how much money do ITV and the other so-called independent broadcasters get directly from the licence?

Nothing, the fact that the license is ring-fenced for the BBC is a spearate issue and one I'm reasonably sure the present government would like to change if they thought they could get away with it, putting the license fee into the general taxation pot is definitely something that's been mooted before. IMO it would be the first step on the path to dismantling the BBC altogether.

 

[Paul.]

I do though, like many others who think like me, object purely to its totalitarian, Orwellian compulsory licence, which people can actually be fined (and imprisoned?) for not paying, whether they watch BBC channels or not.

Some people don't drive on motorways (which are expensive to build) but it's not really feasible to change their road tax based on the fact that they only use part of the road system.

Sometimes the state needs to protect people from themselves (think flouride in water for example) - a diet of talent shows, soaps and dumbed down quizes wouldn't be good for anyone!

Thats a poor example unless the hypothetical person grows their own food and makes their own cloths as the motorways are essential to the countrys infrastructure

 

[professorhat]

Sorry Professor, but it’s not remotely like the NHS: even if I opted to pay for private healthcare, I don’t object to having a proportion of my income deducted to fund the NHS, which *is* an enviable organisation, and one that every day saves the lives of UK citizens who would otherwise die.

When I compared it to the NHS, it was on the terms that the BBC is a British institution which is envied by people from other nations around the world (no matter what a person's own feelings are around either of them).

Clearly comparing the relative importance of the NHS (which as you say, saves peoples lives) and the BBC in our society is a ridiculous one, and not a comparison I was intending to make.

 

[Al ears]

The language is deliberately ambiguous to scare you. If you do not watch live broadcasts, you dont pay. Ring them and ask yourself.

Yes but that wasn't my point, how do you PROVE you don't watch live broadcasts? You could have a TV connected to an aerial and tell them you don't watch live broadcasts but I doubt they'd just take your word for it, there's no difference between that and having a PC (laptop or otherwise, were battery powered TVs exempt from the license fee?) and internet connection.

It was always my understanding that you had to have a licence if you owned anything with a 'tuner' in it, as it was this that allowed you to receive the TV signal. Purely watching TV over an internet connection would surely circumvent this as there is no tuner card in my laptop. On the subject of the 'man at the door' I remember when one called at my mothers insisting on seeing her TV licence - she has never owned a TV! My belief is they simply target addresses that do not have a listed licence.

 

[professorhat]

My belief is they simply target addresses that do not have a listed licence.

It would be a bit of a waste of time to target addresses that do have a licence...

 

[MajorFubar]

It's not a license to watch the BBC, it's a license to watch broadcast TV.

Really? So precisely how much money do ITV and the other so-called independent broadcasters get directly from the licence?

Nothing,...

So we agree then, that in everything but name, the 'TV licence' *is* in fact a BBC licence, which every household in the land (barring those few entitled to government concessions) is obliged to pay, whether they watch BBC or not. I rest my case.

 

[The_Lhc]

It's not a license to watch the BBC, it's a license to watch broadcast TV.

Really? So precisely how much money do ITV and the other so-called independent broadcasters get directly from the licence?

Nothing,...

So we agree then, that in everything but name, the 'TV licence' *is* in fact a BBC licence

No we don't agree, which I explained in the part of my post that you removed. If you want to watch TV, the government requires you to have a TV license. What they do with the money from that license is up to them and currently it is used to fund the BBC. If you don't want to pay it, don't watch broadcast TV. That's the law, if you don't like it, write to your MP.

 

[John Duncan]

It was always my understanding that you had to have a licence if you owned anything with a 'tuner' in it, as it was this that allowed you to receive the TV signal. Purely watching TV over an internet connection would surely circumvent this as there is no tuner card in my laptop.

No. Doesn't matter what the equipment is, if you watch a TV broadcast live, you need a TV license, whatever you watch it on. The bits about "equipment capable of receiving a broadcast" have been removed. You don't need a license to watch TV on catchup services.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8/

Course, my digital cable and Freeview boxes are always a few seconds out of sync of true 'live', so I don't bother with a license...;-)

 

[MajorFubar]

if you don't like it, write to your MP.

I'm sure many people have, and do, and it doesn't, and won't ever, make any difference.

I wonder what kind of outcry there would be if the govt announced it was to launch an official national Internet Service Provider and everyone in the country with 'net access *has* to pay to fund it, regardless of whether they use this new ISP or not.

 

[chebby]

Course, my digital cable and Freeview boxes are always a few seconds out of sync of true 'live', so I don't bother with a license...;-)

That would only work until March when the analogue 'reference' live broadcasts disappear.

Of course (if you could demonstrate this time delay to a TV license bod) you'd still get done because the equipment necessary to prove your argument would constitute a breach itself. (Unless you get a license paying neighbour to select an analogue channel and put the TV in their front window and have your TV in your - unlicensed - front window showing the digital channel.)

You could buy two PVRs. Take one around to said friendly neighbour's place, plug it in, set a week's worth of viewing to record automatically. After a week, take that PVR back to watch recordings at home and leave second PVR to record the following week's viewing ... and so on.

Of course, two PVRs could cost as much as three TV licenses, but at least it will show 'The Man' you won't pay their dastardly, evil, pernicious (but incredibly good value) tax 'cos you're a rebel and you'd rather hang than pay anyone for stuff.

 

[professorhat]

if you don't like it, write to your MP.

I'm sure many people have, and do, and it doesn't, and won't ever, make any difference.

Not true at all. If enough people did, and it was high enough on their agenda to change their voting habits, then it would most definitely make a difference - this is how democracy works.

Unfortunately for yourself, it may be that you find yourself in a minority who wants to scrap the BBC in its current form (which is essentially what would happen were the changes you're asking for to come about). I can't prove that, so happy to be proved wrong - if most people do want to do this, then that's what should happen. I currently think it would be a sad day were that ever to come about.

 

[hammill]

if you don't like it, write to your MP.

I'm sure many people have, and do, and it doesn't, and won't ever, make any difference.

Not true at all. If enough people did, and it was high enough on their agenda to change their voting habits, then it would most definitely make a difference - this is how democracy works.

Unfortunately for yourself, it may be that you find yourself in a minority who wants to scrap the BBC in its current form (which is essentially what would happen were the changes you're asking for to come about). I can't prove that, so happy to be proved wrong - if most people do want to do this, then that's what should happen. I currently think it would be a sad day were that ever to come about.

I am in total agreement. If I were to list good things about the UK, the BBC would be in my top 10.

 

[John Duncan]

Course, my digital cable and Freeview boxes are always a few seconds out of sync of true 'live', so I don't bother with a license...;-)

That would only work until March when the analogue 'reference' live broadcasts disappear.

Of course (if you could demonstrate this time delay to a TV license bod) you'd still get done because the equipment necessary to prove your argument would constitute a breach itself. (Unless you get a license paying neighbour to select an analogue channel and put the TV in their front window and have your TV in your - unlicensed - front window showing the digital channel.)

You could buy two PVRs. Take one around to said friendly neighbour's place, plug it in, set a week's worth of viewing to record automatically. After a week, take that PVR back to watch recordings at home and leave second PVR to record the following week's viewing ... and so on.

Of course, two PVRs could cost as much as three TV licenses, but at least it will show 'The Man' you won't pay their dastardly, evil, pernicious (but incredibly good value) tax 'cos you're a rebel and you'd rather hang than pay anyone for stuff.

Either that or I could be lying and really do have a TV license (since I'd pay double if they'd let me).

 

[Clare Newsome]

The entire year's licence fee was worth it for the moment this morning on BBC Radio 4 Today programme when they challenged Ed Miliband about being "weird".

(Listen from 14:00 here).

 

[Al ears]

My belief is they simply target addresses that do not have a listed licence.

It would be a bit of a waste of time to target addresses that do have a licence...

You are correct - I knew it sounded a bit wrong just as I posted! What I meant was locations were picked purely on address listings rather than the idea that it was a detector van that had pointed them towards your door.