TV licence query

movilogo

Just see here which ones have license and which don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

Kurtis_Blue

movilogo wrote: »

Just see here which ones have license and which don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

I have and most do that I checked, but I don't need to duplicate your research fully. What was the ratio you found for emerging markets? and how do you think this effects us in the "developed world"

movilogo

What was the ratio you found for emerging markets? and how do you think this effects us in the "developed world"

If countries like Brazil, China, India can afford to abolish TV license why UK can't do that?
Why BBC needs to rob money from people in the name of TV license?
All other channels are ad supported. Then why make an exception for BBC?

Nilrem

movilogo wrote: »

If countries like Brazil, China, India can afford to abolish TV license why UK can't do that?
Why BBC needs to rob money from people in the name of TV license?
All other channels are ad supported. Then why make an exception for BBC?

Because all the other channels tend to chase ratings and nothing else - what happened to ITV's childrens content?
Ah yes, it didn't make them money...
What happened to ITV's once proud variety of drama - ah yes, it cost more to make, and got less ratings than things like "I'm an z list, get me on TV again".
What happened to the documentaries that ITV used to show, or the consumer affairs...

The BBC isn't perfect, but it provides a heck of a lot more variety of content for all ages (not just those that the advertisers like), and does a lot to develop UK talent rather than just buying in content from America.
It also isn't afraid to upset companies by doing honest reviews, and investigations into complaints.
Oh, and it manages it for about the same as the multiroom sub, or HD premium Sky charge for one receiver.

It could be much worse, we could have just ad funded, or subscription TV (most of the non sport Sky channels are at least 80% repeats in any given week, and that's for the good ones, the worst ones tend to hit 95%+ repeats), or we could have the situation some of the other countries with a TV licence have, which is a licence which goes straight into the government coffers without any going back to actually do anything for TV.

movilogo

Because all the other channels tend to chase ratings and nothing else

Beg to differ on this.

Channels like Discovery, National Geography etc. are quite informative. How do they survive then?

I rarely watch BBC but still I have to pay TV license. Why?

That means we don't have a choice. License money is funding BBC and I can't choose not to watch BBC and thus not pay. I still have to pay!! This is what I can't accept.

This is just a tax - whatever way you want to justify it. We have to pay even if we don't like.

Kurtis_Blue

movilogo wrote: »

Beg to differ on this.

Channels like Discovery, National Geography etc. are quite informative. How do they survive then?

Only one third of Discoverys funds comes from advertising the rest from subscritions, the majority of Discovery channels are pay per view.
And National Geographic is fully a subscription channel......come on make an effort.

davidlizard

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Only one third of Discoverys funds comes from advertising the rest from subscritions, the majority of Discovery channels are pay per view.
And National Geographic is fully a subscription channel......come on make an effort.

The fact that National Geographic and others are capable of making quality programs in a free market proves that a licence fee is not the only way of funding decent television. If they can produce quality television in this manner, then so can the BBC.

The BBC gets over £3 BILLION pounds a year from the licence fee - so given this near bottomless pit of cash they should be expected to make some decent programmes from time to time. The problem is they are ratings chasing against ITV and other commercial broadcasters, who have to earn their money rather than be given it on a plate and are finding it difficult to compete on this non-level playing field.

Personally I have not watched anything on BBC for well over 2 years - their sport is non existent, their news is biased and the remainder is "sleb/house/antique/cooking/makeover/reality" dumbed down pap which I can live without - so when my licence expired back in February I did not bother to renew it as I have no need for their services and am reluctant to fund it.

The monthly threat-o-grams have started, but they can waste as much money as they want chasing me - the more money the BBC waste trying to enforce the outdated concept of mandatory licencing the better, as they will have less money left to use to bludgeon commercial television out of the marketplace.

asbokid

movilogo wrote: »

License money is funding BBC and I can't choose not to watch BBC and thus not pay. I still have to pay! This is what I can't accept. It is just a tax - whatever way you want to justify it. We have to pay even if we don't like.

The TV licence fee is an unfair tax as well. It really hurts the poorest in society. The TV licence for the retired (but under 75) costs nearly two weeks of state retirement pension.

The licence fee could be absorbed into general taxation. Incorporated into income tax, the rich would pay more, and the poorest would pay the least. That method of funding would also save an immediate £300m a year in administration costs. That is the sum currently wasted on Crapita plc which operates TV Licensing on behalf of the BBC.

But the TV licence fee is not really about money. It is used as a gauge to measure the penetration of state propaganda.

Those who don't have a TV are often anti-government. These are the people who are tired of the government lies in the TV news bulletins, tired of the phony pretexts to justify endless mineral wars, tired of the airbrushed reports on state corruption, tired of the mindless idolatry in royal reports, etcetera.

The government is more concerned by those people: those who refuse to buy a TV licence for ideological reasons. The Orwellian evasion detection team of TV Licensing should really be called the Propaganda Enforcement Unit.

These licence enforcement goons are notorious for casting scurrilous aspersions on those who state frankly that they have no TV. But it is pointless telling TVLA that you don't have a TV, because you're called a liar nevertheless, and the bullying continues!

The harassment campaign waged by Crapita is a campaign waged by proxy by HMG. In truth it targets those who don't want a TV. The government really doesn't care about licence dodgers. Most of them are wasted away on dope or drink, and offer no challenge to the state.

But the paranoid British government considers those without a TV to pose a genuine threat. The Nazis had similar paranoid tendencies towards families who chose to home school their kids. The Third Reich could see that those families were slipping through the propaganda net. And so home-schooling was made illegal.

The government uses the TV licence to measure disillusionment in the British population. Those households without a TV (and no need for a licence) are singled out as potential trouble-makers. Like the home schoolers of the Nazi era - they too have slipped through the propaganda net.

Nilrem

movilogo wrote: »

Beg to differ on this.

Channels like Discovery, National Geography etc. are quite informative. How do they survive then?

I rarely watch BBC but still I have to pay TV license. Why?

That means we don't have a choice. License money is funding BBC and I can't choose not to watch BBC and thus not pay. I still have to pay!! This is what I can't accept.

This is just a tax - whatever way you want to justify it. We have to pay even if we don't like.

They survive largely because they are subscription with adverts, but also largely because they show about 90% repeats (about an hour a day. maybe two of new content depending on day and exact channel), and much as I like a lot of their content, most of it is fly on the wall, or relatively cheap stuff that at best has a British voice over.

They (at least the UK versions) also don't generally do the really in-depth natural history stuff that the BBC does.

mrred66

the 'tv' licence is a smokescreen.

you do not need a licence to own a tv.
you do not need a licence to own a microwave.
.................................................hairdryer
.................................................toaster/radio/etc

the bbc employ a company to tell us that we need a licence for a tv/pc/dvd/mobile phone/satalite/freevie box, in case we watch their product.
the bbc try and scare us by telling us a detector van is in the area but can anyone tell me when was the last time they actually saw a tv detector van?? i have never ever saw one.
if we have a tv/pc/mobile phone etc which is not being used and unplugged from the wall or even broke, they assume we will fix the appliance and use it to view their product and they want us to pay £145.
bbc do not encrypt their channels on tv or online so we have no choice but to pay them.
if you have a tv/pc/phone and the licence people see you with it on they WILL fine you.
this tv licence law is a discrace and is basically a stealth tax which should be abolished and would be if they encrypt their channels like sky do.

i have not had a licence for 6 years but still watch tv.
every month i used to get a letter addressed 'to the occupier' telling me that i need a license, i now get fewer letters.
3 times in 6 years a licence man has knocked at my door and asked my name, i didnt speak to him and closed the door.
i will not buy a licence because i think bbc are bullys with their scare tactics and they do not give viewers a choice like sky do.

rant over!