TV licence query

moneysavingkitten

cajef wrote: »

OK so how do people view these channels if there are no terrestrial transmitters to broadcast them as the licence fee pays for staff and maintenance of them, who is going the run them or are you suggesting people all view via satellite?

Perhaps other people or companies would be allowed to set up transmitters rather than all the broadcasting frequencies being restricted, I think it would encourage competition which is never a bad thing.

Or perhaps those frequencies going spare could be used for something useful, like providing better internet services to more people where tv programmes AND other media could be provided. I know that this is not a complete answer, it would require a completely new system, but I don't think the current one provides room for innovation or competition.

I think the question is more, if the BBC had adverts like other channels, would enough people still watch it to make it viable? I am dubious about that, which is another reason I think the TV license fee is a bit strange.

moneysavingkitten

Swan wrote: »

I did it a few years ago, the minute I discovered I didn't need a licence to use my telly for DVDs & gaming!

I just wrote & told them I wouldn't be renewing my licence as I never watched broadcasts, they replied to say that was fine, & that they'd send someone round to check, but in the 3 years* I was licence-free no-one ever showed up


*my son lives with me now, he likes to watch telly, so I have a licence these days

Thanks very much for your reply I wanted to know how complicated it was from someone who had done it, so I think that answers my question Cheers.

Swan_2

moneysavingkitten wrote: »

Thanks very much for your reply I wanted to know how complicated it was from someone who had done it, so I think that answers my question Cheers.

it was easy because they never sent anyone round, it might have been different if they'd appeared on my doorstep!

cajef

moneysavingkitten wrote: »

Perhaps other people or companies would be allowed to set up transmitters rather than all the broadcasting frequencies being restricted, I think it would encourage competition which is never a bad thing.

I don't really think there is an obvious answer, you either pay for a licence which includes several advert free channels plus staff wages and transmitter maintenance, or you pay a private company who no doubt going by Sky and the other alternative providers would charge far more than the cost of a licence.

On a personal note, I happen to think the the quality of programmes on the BBC is far superior to any of the other channels payed for either by advertising or subscription, so think the licence fee is well worth the money compared to the rip off subscriptions charges by Sky etc.

paddedjohn

Many years ago the licensing gestapo turned up at my Dads house, they asked if he had a license and he said no, time goes by he ends up in court and was asked by the judge why he didnt have one to which he replied 'i havnt got a telly'. He got awarded costs and the official was bollocked.

davidlizard

Concerning the BBC and how its funded:

Firstly the transmitter network should be funded out of general taxation - its part of the national infrastructure in the same way roads are.

Secondly the BBC itself - its grown way too big over the last decade or so, with the licence fee growing accordingly. Now there are several hundred TV channels, we need to ask why we still need the BBC - i.e. what does it provide that the others don't to justify its existence? IMO it should be to provide the content that whilst still valuable would not be commercially viable for others to broadcast, or broadcast impartially. Stuff that is suitably well covered by commercial television (soaps, celebs, reality, makeovers, cooking, some sports, game shows) should be left to commercial telly to exploit.

The problem I have with the BBC is that they now seem to try and justify their existence via ratings - which means competing directly against (mostly) ITV, with the consequence that programs are dumbed down to appeal to the widest audience possible. Meantime, ITV are finding it difficult to compete against the vast BBC, and therefore losing viewers and consequently advertising.

Personally, I would reduce the BBC by about half. I would leave it with just BBC1 (general, with more current affairs type programs), BBC2 (with a heavy local flavour), BBC News and BBC Parliament. I would also rid the BBC of the highly paid celebs. It should be a place for raw talent to make their mark, and if successful, then they can go on and make their fortunes on commercial telly.

Similarly I would trim a lot of the radio stations, especially those where there are reasonable commercial alternatives (e.g. Radio 1 and 2).

Spruance

I think I may have answered my own question just reading back through this thread but in case I have misconstrued the definition I will ask away anyhow!:)

My late uncle's property has been unoccupied since he sadly passed away on 31st July 2010 and just recently there have been reminders dropping on the mat from TV Licensing. I ignored the first one because no-one is watching TV there for the simple reason that no-one is even living there but now another one has arrived addressed to "Legal Occupier", except that there is no legal occupier or indeed any occupier. There is an old TV in the house which we have yet to dispose of, but if my understanding is correct that doesn't require a licence. If push does come to shove, the legal owner of the property is now my 77 year old mother and she qualifies for a free licence. So should I just keep ignoring the reminders or let them know the situation?

Spruance

brewerdave

Just write advising that the owner has died and that the house is unoccupied,awaiting sale(??)

davidlizard

brewerdave wrote: »

Just write advising that the owner has died and that the house is unoccupied,awaiting sale(??)

Would not even waste a stamp or cost of a phone call doing that. You are under no obligation to tell the BBC that you do not require a licence. The letters are auto-generated. Simply ignore them.

If you do decide to contact them, they will more than likely refuse to accept you are telling the truth and demand to be let in to inspect for themselves, at which point they have been known to pull every trick in the book to con people into purchasing a licence and fabricating evidence to use in court. See the BBC resistance forums for plenty of evidence of this.

Spruance

davidlizard wrote: »

Would not even waste a stamp or cost of a phone call doing that. You are under no obligation to tell the BBC that you do not require a licence. The letters are auto-generated. Simply ignore them.

Thanks David. That was my first inclination especially as the property is unoccupied and thus should not need a licence.

It was just the way that the letter was worded, on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

Thanks to brewerdave as well, but I think I will try David L's suggestion and play dumb for now.;)

Spruance