TV Licence Woes

fthl

I'll rant about this if I like. Bah.

The beeb licence fee funds more than you might realise. Without it you could expect your sky subscription to double. Freesat, freeview, shared facilities, talent generation, news facilities, all have been funded in someway by the beeb. Why do you think that the only ones that really campaign against the licence fee are those in the print media? If the beeb commercialised it would kill many current commercial channels, that market is saturated.

I don't accept the argument that 'it is legal so therefore it is ok'. So are lots of things, but personally I still find them distasteful. This topic always gets people going for the simple reason that they like having something for nothing and don't understand that it all needs paying for somehow. It also generates passion because the spongers know that they are freeloading on a technicality and feel the need justify themselves.

Does the content cost? - yes
Do the Beeb expect you to pay for it? yes?

I see it as a simple equation from there.

If you made the beeb voluntary, like sky, you'd find that it disappeared because no-one would subscribe initially. Then they'd bemoan its absence in short order when everything else doubled in price and all that you are left with is Heart and Big Sodding Brother.

Other countries have tried abolishing the tv tax, no matter how it is levied, and have usually gone back. Aus is an example I believe. In some states in the US it was charged as a property tax. Very few countries have a commercial-only system.

I can accept that this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't really care. I've experienced tv in other parts of the world and cannot praise what the beeb do enough. The alternative it terrible.

Mark_Hewitt

You seem to think those who want to access iPlayer etc also want to see the licence fee abolished, entirely untrue of course! The BBC and the government have decided that things like the BBC Website, iPlayer, Radio etc do not require a licence. Therefore you should feel no guilt whatsoever for accessing their services, after all it was BBC's choice to 'give away' this service, it's not like copying music etc.

And yes, I do pay my TV licence and I certainly agree we'd be much worse off without the BBC. And yes, I wouldn't have a problem with iPlayer et al requiring a licence to view, but the fact of the matter is, they don't!

GillsMan7

fthl wrote: »

Does the content cost? - yes
Do the Beeb expect you to pay for it? yes?

I agree with you that the service provided by the BBC is generally great. Their websites, their podcasts, etc, are all terrific. However the crux of your argument (quoted above) is totally wrong.

Does the content cost money? Yes
Do the BBC expect me to pay for access to their website, iPlayer (not live), podcasts, etc? No!!

It's not a requirement, nor do the BBC even try to guilt people into paying this. So I'm not quite sure what you're going on about.

Ironically, I am forced to pay for a TV license if I watch any TV content as it is broadcast live, including the BBC's watch now service - and yet this is the part I'd least like to pay for.

If the BBC did start charging for its non-televisual content, e.g. by making license fee payers have to log in, then I would consider paying. But as I'm under no obligation to (legally or morally - who are you to decide on acceptable morals btw) I'm quite satisfied not paying.

The Guardian doesn't make me pay for access to its site either. And Sky used to allow me to watch Gillette Soccer Saturday on their website despite not being a subscriber. Morals don't come into it - business models do.

Armitage

It also generates passion because the spongers know that they are freeloading on a technicality and feel the need justify themselves.

Crickey. I feel the need to justify myself whenever anyone accuses me of sponging anything. I've present extremely clear reasons why (a) I more than pay for the bits of the BBC that there is a public interest argument for supporting, and (b) I am under no moral or legal obligation to pay for the rest. It's not mere technical quibbling. If it were, they'd be easily rebuttable. You haven't done that. (To be honest, at this stage I doubt you're intellectually capable of doing that. Stupid people often think stuff they can't understand is technical quibbling.) You've just resorted to the same kind of obnoxious name-calling you started in the first place, which is pretty ironic given you're the one going on about ethics.

If you're going to charge into conversations about something different, call people spongers, and so on, I'd suggest you have a duty to actually bother to try to read and understand what people say in response. You clearly haven't done that, so I'm afraid at this stage all we can do is ignore your ignorant rantings.

pimento

I've just seen an advert for iPad where they show you watching Sky (subscription required).

Just out of interest, would you require a TV licence to do this?

fthl

You are not paying for something the rest of us pay for and are using a technicality to do so. that means that you are sponging. Simples. As for intellectual capability, whatever. Justify yourself however you feel you wish to. If you don't feel morally obliged to pay, far enough, but appreciate that a moral code is flexible and this simply means that yours is set at a lower standard than my own. I appreciate the consequences of the actions of those that seek to avoid paying for the service. Perhaps you do not.

If you didn't understand the legislation and so needed to ask the question on your rights and obligations and options here, does this mean that you are stupid because you didn't understand the myriad posts and pieces of information on this subject?

If you don't have a licence, how do you pay for the bits of the beeb you use?

As for do the beeb expect people people to pay - they sure as hell do. Or at the folk I have had cause to speak with do. They are constrained by the legislation and were it to be written today, then I think that the restrictions would be entirely different. Politics and the amount of available parliamentary time prevent anything changing in the near future.

Armitage

I've just seen an advert for iPad where they show you watching Sky (subscription required).

Just out of interest, would you require a TV licence to do this?

I'm not (yet) a lawyer, but my understanding is you would need one if you use the iPad to watch Sky television programmes as they are broadcast. It's the 'as they are broadcast' bit that's important. Relevant legislation is:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/9/made

pimento

A bit rich considering the only channels you cn pick up on an iPad are the subscription channels.

Armitage

If you don't have a licence, how do you pay for the bits of the beeb you use?

I've told you that the BBC is part funded through general taxation three times now. That's pretty crucial for what I've been saying. I think you haven't read what I have written or haven't understood it because you've missed that three times.

As for do the beeb expect people people to pay - they sure as hell do.

I don't care what the beeb 'people' think. Some beeb people think paying Jonathan Ross millions from licence fees is a good idea.

this simply means that yours is set at a lower standard than my own.

No it doesn't. But as has been pretty well established, you haven't been paying attention to the material facts here, so we can't tell anything about who's moral code has higher standards. Get the facts right first and then we can talk. Here's an argument:

1. Compulsory taking money from people under threat of fine/imprisonment to pay for the BBC is justified only if the BBC uses that money to create programmes that are overwhelmingly in the public interest.
2. The only programmes which meet this criteria are some programmes on BBC radio 3, 4, the World Service, the odd documentary on BBC 3/4, and perhaps the odd flagship nature doc.
3. These programmes are more than paid for with the money the BBC receives from general taxation and from commerical operations.

Therefore:

4. There is no moral obligation to contribue more money to the BBC than that from general taxation (or commerical operations).

That's basically what I think, and it's as clear as I can say it. I of course think there is some moral obligation to follow the law too, but the law is clear here that I don't need a licence fee to watch the odd programme on iplayer. (mostly In Our Time and A Brief History of the World in 100 objects, plus various radio comedy shows.)

Armitage

A bit rich considering the only channels you cn pick up on an iPad are the subscription channels.

Yes, I agree, but dems the rules (& I don't make the rules).