TV Licence Woes

pimento

Good job I don't have an ipad or a Sky subscription then!

WhiteHorse

And don't forget that the BBC (aka the Blatant Bias Corporation), has a pro-Labour slant.

Now that, I object to. If they want to broadcast Labour propaganda, they may do so. But not out of my taxes.

LittleMissAspie

I haven't had a TV since I moved out of home and every place I've lived I've had letters from the TV licensing people threatening visits and court action. I ignore them all and sometimes don't even open them before they go in the bin. I haven't been visited yet but if I am they are certainly not coming in. They can waste their money on visits and letters and taking me to court if they like, it's no skin off my nose.

I find it completely objectionable that you have to tell them why you don't have a licence. I don't have to phone the DVLA and tell them why I don't have a driving licence, I don't have to phone the relevant department to tell them why I don't have a fishing licence. Why should TV be any different? It's plain rude to assume that because someone doesn't have a licence that they are breaking the law. God forbid that someone isn't enamoured by the great British Broadcasting Corporation and *gasp* doesn't want to watch Only Fools and Horses for the 20th time.

Apparently the BBC had an opportunity to implement a smartcard system with digital TV where you would slot your card into the Freeview machine to watch the BBC. They declined, not sure why. Either too costly to implement or, more likely in my opinion, they were worried people wouldn't subscribe.

fthl

"I've told you that the BBC is part funded through general taxation three times now"

And three times you've been over egging the pudding to justify your position. A fraction of the beebs funding comes from govt grants, 200m or so out of billions. And I doubt very much you have any idea what these grants are used for, or that you use these services, save for perhaps freesat and freeview where the grants contributed to the infrastructure, or perhaps you are a fan of the strange special interest programs and more obscure current affairs stuff?

so...

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.

Call the licence a tax if you like, but that is what it is. I don't see how it differs from your definition, save for the fact that you'd then need to pay it, and the funds would not be ring fenced as they are now. General taxation has been a boon for our transport infrastructure, no?

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.

In your opinion. Public interest, if defined by what the public want, would end up being eastenders, or that is what the viewing figures would tell us. Without a licence fee all those programmes you seem to value would vanish. The evidence of other public broadcasters, such as pbs in the us has shown us that.

3. These programmes are more than paid for with the money the BBC receives from general taxation and from commerical operations.

I doubt it. £700m buys zip. Sky spends billions. The discovery channel alone spends billions.

So I stand by my (unpopular) position. If you use beeb services that cost money to run, and are funded under the existing model by the licence fee, then you are morally obligated to contribute, and using legal technicalities to avoid do so is rotten and means that you are sponging off the rest of us.

Armitage

Public interest, if defined by what the public want, would end up being eastenders, or that is what the viewing figures would tell us.

That's obviously not a good characterisation of public interest. What we're talking about is programmes which sustain the political and intellectual life of the nation. Perhaps what you call 'obscure current affairs stuff'

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

I doubt it. £700m buys zip

Total BBC national radio spend is £230 M. Take out Radio 1 and 2, and we're probably £150 - £175 M. So it would pay for that. Alternatively, the BBC could pay Jonathan Ross's salary as was for 9 years. That tells you something about the beeb's priorities, and failure to spend money in justifiable ways

So you can't win that argument. But to be honest, I don't even need that argument. As GillsMan7 pointed out, similar reasoning holds for reading The Guardian online without paying for the newspaper. So you have to say that we're morally obliged to give money to the Guardian for reading guardian.co.uk (or any other such website). That's a reductio of your moral posturing.

fthl

so then... all this commercial revenue - where does it actually originate from? Oh yeah, selling the programmes that the licence fee pays to make. Without the latter, you haven't got a former.

As for the guardian argument, advertising features in print media heavily, it is where the money actually comes from, and as the times experiment has shown, the larger players are looking for a way to charge. Like the freesheets, the guardian model is to generate hits to sell advertising. As a comparitor to the bbc it is a poor one, sky or itv would be more accurate.

As for public interest, you seem to missing the point that what you are defining public interest is the type of programming only made possible because of the licence fee that you are avoiding, relying on the rest of us to pay for this content to be created.

GillsMan7

I certainly don't want to wade into a debate about the rights and wrongs of the TV License. I've heard very compelling arguments both for and against the continuation of the license fee.

But if anyone thinks you should pay for a license when you're not compelled to, then I might suggest that they visit the moneyburningexpert forums. It's not a technicality !!!!!!, it's the law. If they do decide to make catch-up TV covered by the license fee, that's fair enough. But bearing in mind that there is a strict definition of "broadcast" material, and iPlayer, etc can NEVER be considered broadcast material, it would require fairly major changes to the TV Licensing legislation.

It's really, really simple, and I'm mildly shocked that someone who is able to construct actual sentences is not able to see this very simple point. (Then again, anyone who says "simples" is perhaps a bit simple themselves tbh).

Mankysteve

If you haven't got a TV why didn't you just let him/her in to have a look?

Then you wouldn't get any follow up visits. It would only take 5 min max.

I know there no legal right to entry but sometimes you can be difficult just for the sake of it.

fthl

Gills - if you read my posts you'll see that I accept the legal side. It is just my personal view that I find it distasteful because I believe that the content has a value. I pay to have this content, as does the majority of the country, but there are a small number of people that don't feel that they need to. My fear, and this is where I suggest that you are perhaps not seeing the bigger picture - if enough people did this then either iplayer would go or the beeb itself would. Somebody needs to pay for this stuff to be made. If you watch it, why should you not contribute?

There are lots of things in life that I am not compelled to do, but I do them anyway. give blood, carry a donor card, give up my seat on the train to those that need it, help friends and family where I can. The moral contract and sense of contribution is missing from this society, it is all about me-me-me - what can I get, how can I get compensation, it's not fair, why can't I have etc. A corrupt sense of twisted entitlement that takes us one step nearer a truly broken country. Nothing is free, at some point, the bill will need paying.

paddedjohn

fthl wrote: »

gills - if you read my posts you'll see that i accept the legal side. It is just my personal view that i find it distasteful because i believe that the content has a value. I pay to have this content, as does the majority of the country, but there are a small number of people that don't feel that they need to. My fear, and this is where i suggest that you are perhaps not seeing the bigger picture - if enough people did this then either iplayer would go or the beeb itself would. Somebody needs to pay for this stuff to be made. If you watch it, why should you not contribute?

There are lots of things in life that i am not compelled to do, but i do them anyway. Give blood, carry a donor card, give up my seat on the train to those that need it, help friends and family where i can. The moral contract and sense of contribution is missing from this society, it is all about me-me-me - what can i get, how can i get compensation, it's not fair, why can't i have etc. A corrupt sense of twisted entitlement that takes us one step nearer a truly broken country. Nothing is free, at some point, the bill will need paying.

this arguement holds no water. If someone wants to use iplayer, which is free, why should they have to buy a tv license? Cyclists ride on the road but they dont offer to pay road tax! (unless they have a car at home)