Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?

Somerset

Do I want to pay a tax to fund an organisation that actively engages in tax avoidance employee/contractor/company schemes - no.

androidgamer

dansan wrote: »

You don't necessarily need to pay for a license to watch TV. There is a completely legal loophole that few people use, but there is a compromise - you can't watch programs as they're being broadcast.

If you use BBC iPlayer, ITV OD, Channel 4OD and Channel 5OD and never watch or record a program as it's being transmitted, then you don't need a license. I can't post a link as this is my first post, but google "FAQ103 tv licensing" to find the relevant page.

We surrendered our TV license in October last year and have since been watching only catch-up TV. Admittedly, we're not big TV watchers and only watch 1-2 hours per night - usually documentaries and quiz shows such as QI. Our children love it as they can watch what they want in their TV hour - back to back Button Moon on YouTube at the moment!

After a month of having our certificate of No Licence Needed, they cancelled that and said we needed a licence, but a quick phone call sorted it out and they re-issued our certificate of No Licence Needed. No one has called at the house to check, although if they do I'll happily show them we can't receive broadcast TV any more.

With all that downloading, we are still within the 40Gb limit each month - we were prepared to pay an extra £5 per month to go to 80Gb download, but haven't needed to.

That's how to save £145.50 per year :-)

same goes for me, i hardly watched LIVE TV as found most was available through BBCiPlayer (which downloads shows you want automatically), so I cancelled in April, got a no licence needed certificate, then got a letter stating i needed a licence, rang them up stating i didn't need one & got another no licence needed certificate today.

letter says that from now on i won't get any letters from them for 2 years

I have de-tuned my TV, which has in-built freeview (just re-scan channels without the aerial) & added tape to the connectors (am sure i saw it on the BBC website somewhere...) to show a possible Licensing visitor that it hasn't been used

TropicalLagoon

What really annoys me is although BBC are not supposed to advertise as we pay for the privilege of uninterrupted broadcasting, yet they still advertise radio and tv programs and any charity thing that may be about to occur. It really grates me and should not be allowed.......

mrtommygunwhite

product placement is the way forward

Brodie_mummy

I certainly don't want to pay for a tv licence i would happily see ads, especially since i pay for my channels through sky already. I think it is a liberty as they already show ads for upcoming tv shows charity events etc and have adverts on their radio stations

mart67_2

In principle, i have nothing against the licence fee. However, i don't see why people with low incomes should pay the same as a milionaire. If, for example, there were a 5% tax on new TV equipment, the rich would pay more. Any surplus could go to the UK film industry.

chrismbt

The BBC is unique in the world, and makes some of the best programs in the world, both on TV and Radio, and it costs about the same as a phone line rental.

I have Freesat, so 150+ TV and Radio channels. I'd say about 95% of what I watch is on BBC Channels.

If the licence fee went I think the BBC as we know it would go too. It wouldn't be the same as we have now, with adverts between programs, it would just become another ITV, chasing the ratings and any extra revenue with all those odious product placements and oh-so-easy £1 a-go competitions on every program. There is only so much advertising to go around, so all channels would suffer.

News International has long campaigned to get BBC Online closed down, why? Because it competes with their on-line news, which they want to put all behind a paywall. Sky wants BBC News closed down, so they can charge for SkyNews.

We've already seen cutbacks at the BBC. BBC On-line and the Red Button service are not as comprehensive as they were, not due to costs, but because of restrictions imposed by government to please News International and others.

I think the BBC is great value, much better value than things like phone line rental, mobile phones, and broadband. I use it every day, I get a lot of information and entertainment from it.

jpjp_2

Mart67 - disagree with your theory as IMHO lower income people have bigger tellies.

I say "Bring on the ads"! It would be much simpler with a level playing field, and cheaper for the consumer. Just because a program currently has no adverts does not make it better quality than one with adverts. Competition is GOOD.

The Beeb must already get payments for product placement. I'm sure North Face must pay the BBC a packet of money and provide all those jackets free of charge.... Too much of a coincidence otherwise.

Additionally, the BBC already displays advertising so I am not sure why the licence fee keeps going up. In my job, through something called VPN I log into a server in the US for my work, and the stuff behind the scenes (IP addresses for the techy!) means that my laptop looks like it is in the US. So if I browse the BBC News website when I am logged on to work (eg. in my lunch hour), I get adverts on the BBC News website. Check here...

JaneDoe_2

I've always been against this fee, I pay for Virgin Media and use this service, why should I pay the Beeb for their channels that I never watch. They also waste so much money and this really annoys me, how many overpaid reporters, news readers, presenters etc do they need. Why should I pay a compulsory (or get rid of tv ) fee when I and many others basically live of a pittance of a wage. Get rid of it the sooner the better!

lazer

I think they should lower the fee, and incorporate some of it into the Sky/virgin etc packages.

Instead of £145 a year, it is reduced to £85 normally, and an additional £60 (tax) a year on all subscription TV.