TV Licence Woes

GillsMan7

fthl wrote: »

I know you don't need a license legally, I just wondered how you feel about using iplayer, and watching the tv programmes that I (and others) fund without paying for them? Why do you feel that you should be entitled to watch this content without paying for it? If everyone thought like you then the beeb would vanish because they'd be no funding.

Personally, because I pay for this content, I'd like to see the legislation amended - you need to enter a valid licence number to access iplayer, or a system like sky.

Perhaps this is an unpopular view, but I think that this is no better than sponging.

You answered your own point really. If you don't have a television and don't watch programmes via the Internet as they are broadcast live, then you're a mug if you pay for a TV License when you don't have to.

wealdroam

Have you seen the lengthy TV Licence article Discussion on the In My Home board?

Armitage

Personally, because I pay for this content, I'd like to see the legislation amended - you need to enter a valid licence number to access iplayer, or a system like sky.

If you want to see the legislation amended, go out and campaign or lobby for that. No one is stopping you. In the meantime, no, I absolutely don't think I'm under any moral compulsion to pay the licence fee when the government has chosen to enact legislation which does not require me to.

To be honest, if the BBC required a licence to watch iplayer, I just wouldn't watch it. A lot of the BBC is, in my opinion, popularist rubbish that the private sector can do equally well. I don't care if Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing, or Friday Night with Jonathan Ross were never made. The only bits of the beeb I care about are Radio 3, Radio 4, and the World Service. I *am* made to support the BBC to some extent through its revenue from general taxation - this is particularly true of the World Service (uniquely funded by direct grant from the FCO). I suspect that the non licence fee income is more than enough to pay for those bits of the BBC that actually contribute to the cultural and intellectual life of this nation.

Armitage

Have you seen the lengthy TV Licence article Discussion on the In My Home board?

Thanks! Some interesting stuff there.

fthl

GillsMan7 wrote: »

You answered your own point really. If you don't have a television and don't watch programmes via the Internet as they are broadcast live, then you're a mug if you pay for a TV License when you don't have to.

No, because if I want the content, then it needs to be funded. If we were all crass spongers then there would be no BBC. Morally it is no different to me taking the orange juice out of your fridge.

You are having a service that costs, is not free, that the rest of us pay for and using a technicality to justify a stance you know is unacceptable unless you have few scruples. If the situation were reversed, you'd be screaming from high heaven.

You don't know that I don't campaign for a change, do you?

If you don't like BBC content, don't use it. Arm'ge - the fact that you do seems to imply you are either really very strange, or lying.

mjm3346

fthl wrote: »

I know you don't need a license legally, I just wondered how you feel about using iplayer, and watching the tv programmes that I (and others) fund without paying for them? Why do you feel that you should be entitled to watch this content without paying for it? If everyone thought like you then the beeb would vanish because they'd be no funding.

Personally, because I pay for this content, I'd like to see the legislation amended - you need to enter a valid licence number to access iplayer, or a system like sky.

Perhaps this is an unpopular view, but I think that this is no better than sponging.

I agree make iplayer a pay product, providing the BBC channels go behind a paywall so the general licence fee can be abolished and only those who watch or want the BBC pay for it.

If I have to pay for TV then for about £5 a month more I would much rather have Sky (basic) than a handful of BBC channels. Although the 100's of free to air channels would do.

Bamber19

fthl wrote: »

If everyone thought like you then the beeb would vanish because they'd be no funding.

It's not far off. I believe television will be a purely on demand service within a decade. The BBC will probably be the last to change but by then most people will only be watching Iplayer direct to their TV anyway rather than live television. You should be able to pay for what you want and not forced to pay for BBC services if you want to watch commercial services only.

Armitage

Arm'ge - the fact that you do seems to imply you are either really very strange, or lying.

Sorry, I know people don't think there's any obligation to be polite on the internet, but it's really best not on to go on a stupid rant when it's clear you haven't even bothered to read what I wrote (or maybe you did, but failed to understand it). Why on earth would I lie? What on earth would I be lying about? That I occassionally use iplayer? I've said as much.

You are having a service that costs, is not free, that the rest of us pay for and using a technicality to justify a stance you know is unacceptable unless you have few scruples

Unacceptable? Unacceptable how? - Legally? or Morally?

There's no legal obligation to pay the licence fee to use iplayer. If those that pay want to stop me using it, they're free to campaign to do so.

What about ethics?

The BBC is funded by general taxation, licence fees, and commerical operations (DVD sales etc). The amount from general taxation is more than what they spend on the parts of the service that contribute to the intellectual life of the nation - some of Radio 3, 4, the World service, and the odd thing on BBC3/4 (and which I use, but that's irrelevant). So I am paying enough for those bits by paying tax.

Perhaps you think I'm morally obliged to pay for a licence fee so the rest of the population can watch rubbish like East Enders or Strictly Come Dancing. I'd like to see how on earth you could defend such a crazy view. There's no public/cultural interest in the BBC producing such shows, whereas there is a public/cultural interest in the BBC producing good news, things like the Total Programme on BBC radio 4, and so on.

You are having a service that costs, is not free, that the rest of us pay for and using a technicality to justify a stance you know is unacceptable unless you have few scruples

Sorry, that is again a remarkably stupid thing to say. Did you read the bit where I talk about how some of the BBC is funded from general taxation?

You don't know that I don't campaign for a change, do you?

I don't care one jot about what you personally do. I'd say that if the majority of licence fee payers really wanted a change in the law, they would be easily able to successfully campaign for an ammendement. They have not done so. Therefore the vast majority of licence fee payers do not really care about me using iplayer. So no, most people who pay for the service don't care very much about whether people use iplayer. You clearly do. But you're in a tiny minority, and so with regard to legislative issues we can ignore you.

GillsMan7

Wow.

fthl wrote: »

No, because if I want the content, then it needs to be funded.

It is funded. It's funded by the license fee. Thought that was obvious. The BBC Website is also funded by the license fee, but there are no restrictions on accessing that either whether you're a license fee payer or not, based in this country or not (although it does host ads if you're abroad).

fthl wrote: »

If we were all crass spongers then there would be no BBC. Morally it is no different to me taking the orange juice out of your fridge.

So not paying something you're not obliged to by law makes you a crass sponger? And your analogy was warped in the extreme - it's totally different. Maybe you should start paying for non-essential treatment on the NHS - morally, that's right after all. Maybe you should offer to pay extra taxes that you're not obliged to pay - after all, you're certainly using services paid for by taxes.

fthl wrote: »

You are having a service that costs, is not free, that the rest of us pay for and using a technicality to justify a stance you know is unacceptable unless you have few scruples. If the situation were reversed, you'd be screaming from high heaven.

You are paying for a TV license to enable you to watch live broadcasts. I don't watch live broadcasts so have no need for a TV license. I do read the BBC news website and very occasionally, watch a TV show on iPlayer. The content on the BBC News site and on iPlayer is funded by the TV License fund. But the reason you need to pay for a TV License, and what the BBC spend the TV License fund on are two separate entities.

fthl wrote: »

You don't know that I don't campaign for a change, do you?

If you don't like BBC content, don't use it. Arm'ge - the fact that you do seems to imply you are either really very strange, or lying.

I like the BBC's website, abhor most of their programmes, but like some of their podcasts (which come from their radio contents). So the BBC is good for me. If there's ever a requirement to pay for a TV License to access their website and podcasts, I'll either happily pay or consider using free alternatives. But to think I haven't got any scruples just because I'm using free content is odd. It's a bit like saying that if you visit the Guardian's website but don't click on any of their ads, you're low on scruples as you're not making any money for them.

Mark_Hewitt

If the BBC want to put out content without requiring payment, which everything apart from television broadcast channels is. Then that's the BBC's problem, not anybody elses. Nobody should feel guilty for using any 'free' service a company decides to provide, as it's the companies decision alone as to if they provide it.