TV Licence Should anyone be paying it????

positive1_2

Hi All,

should anyone be forced to by a TV licence because they own a TV?

Yes: if they watch BBC1 right?

But if you dont, then surely you dont need a licence,

although th way the law is right now if you have the "equiptment" for
viewing and capable of viewing then they say you need one,

Id like to say surley its against our human rights to impose an almost Poll tax like burden on people is unjust and unfair,

I can understand when the law was made and only 1 channel was available it would be just and fair to expect ant TV owner to pay to view that channel,

but now there are over 400 hundred something channels available to the uk public, to view BBC1 is an option that most people wont take, and shouldntbe forced to take such licence fee for a non viewing channel,

your thoughts?

redux

positive1 wrote: »

your thoughts?

the forum has a search function, which would have helped you find several interminable arguments about this, many containing plenty of assertions on all sides that have no legal or factual basis

good luck

david29dpo

I do agree. I have been thinking for years, if someone made a box which was only capable of receiving non BBC transmissions, would a licence be necessary? I would hope not.

Esqui

Yes it would. As stated before, there are many topics already on this subject...but briefly - the licence fee also goes towards upkeep of transmitters and other equipment (and partly to Channel 4, too).

There's an easy way to avoid paying it - don't watch or record live TV.

tfspark

positive1 wrote: »

to view BBC1 is an option that most people wont take,

your thoughts?

Wow, most people. That's a very sweeping statement.

I have cable tv with hundredes of channels. I mainly watch the four terestrial channels because I believe that is where the best content is, but I like the choice that all the other channels gives me.

Nilrem

Given the amount of repeats/cost of Sky/VM compared to the LF, the LF is a positive bargain

I'm not a great fan of the LF, but it does guarantee a decent basic service available to as many receivers as you want for a single fee*, and with a huge amount of varied new content every week (and without adverts).

I've currently got VM and if it were not for the discounts applied to the package which make the TV side of things effectively free, I'd probably be dropping to basic TV/Freeview, as pretty much every single non Sports/news channel on Sky/VM is 90%+ repeats (and a lot are 100%).

It is also worth noting that statistically BBC 1/2 are still the most viewed channels in the UK, with something like 80-90% of people watching them for about 8 hours a week on average, so hardly little viewed


*Not an extra £5-10 per receiver.

cajef

positive1 wrote: »

Yes: if they watch BBC1 right?

But if you dont, then surely you dont need a licence

to view BBC1 is an option that most people wont take, and shouldntbe forced to take such licence fee for a non viewing channel,

your thoughts?

My thoughts, well for a start I do not believe that you never ever for one minute watch any of the several BBC channels.

Maybe many people prefer to watch BBC channels rather then the rubbish that is put out on the other 400 channels, so your opinion that 'BBC1 is an option that most people wont take' is flawed argument unless you can come up with actual factual figures to back up your theory.

Likewise many people either do not want or cannot afford to pay for all the extra channels that require a subscription, and as has been pointed out who is going to pay for the maintenance of the transmitters and infrastructure required to enable broadcast of both television and radio without some form of licence fee.

Lakeuk

You only need a licence if you watch uk broadcast tv live, you don't need a licence for owning a TV

1984ReturnsForReal_2

No...............

positive1_2

I’m not sure what BBC1 you’re watching, there schedule is terrible, and I can honestly say I don’t watch it at all, none series doc/soap etc don’t appeal to me in the slightest.

I still feel it’s a FORCED subscription,

In the level off fairness it should be an option.

And if the BBC feels people might view without a licence, then it’s up to
Those to encrypt there service not Force it on the masses because they can.


Add to that, they apply intimidation threats of door step visits, court action, fines, jail term, For One Crappy channel.. Has to be very wrong

juliescot

I can't help but feel that has been discussed before.........