TV Licensing: Vent and Warning

Cornucopia

The trouble with the Licence Fee is that we have been conditioned to view two separate things as being connected, when they aren't.

The UK TV Licence has these characteristics:-

- It is a permit from the State by which the Licensed household is allowed to watch or record TV broadcasts. (This is what the slightly misleading term "live TV" refers to).

- The funds raised from the purchase of Licences are routed via the Government to the BBC. Although there have in the past been various schemes to divert some of those funds to other activities, they have been small, and the virtually all of the Licence Fee money is/has been paid to the BBC.

The issue is that we no longer need there to be a State permit to watch TV. It's a ridiculous concept that probably ceased to have any possible justification when TV became popular in the 1950s.

If we get rid of the Licence, the question then arises as to how the BBC should be funded. Funding entirely by advertising is out, because the TV advertising market is probably saturated already, or close to it.

That leaves 3 main options:-

- Funding from general taxation (whether central Government or Local Government funds). This has the advantage of being income-related to a certain extent.

- Funding from a separate new tax, such as a Household Levy. If everyone were required to pay, irrespective of TV use/ownership, I think that would be unfair.

- Funding by subscription, i.e. people would subscribe to the BBC just as they do with Sky or Netflix.

My personal preference is for subscription, because I think that's more democratic, it could bring the BBC closer to its viewers, it could exist partly outside the commercial market (especially if it was given elements of protection by Government), and it could be a soft transition, whereby the Licence was phased into a subscription over a period of time. Unfortunately, the BBC gerrymandered the Freeview specification, deleting a CAM slot, which makes subscription technically more difficult. However, there can be few households who couldn't get any access to the BBC at all, given that flat screen TVs mostly do have CAM slots, due to an EU directive.

flipperni

If no one is present at your main home address watching tv while you are you at your holiday home then your Main home TV licence covers you anyway. There is no need for a a second licence. There is a website called
Tv Licence Resistance that will give you all the facts you need.

enfield_freddy

maybe if the BBC were able to produce programmes inline with other providers (virgin/sky/bt) then they would be able to get advertisers to pay them?


companies tend to buy time whilst there is a large captive audience.


if you think back , the BBC had it handed to them on a plate back in the 50s , then along came independent TV , yes with adverts , however they took a hell of a lot of the BBC audience , because they made "better" programmes ,, then came sky , etc etc etc.


if there output (BBC) was GOOD then other companies would not have got a foothold


I go for subscription , BUT make the output UK only , why should we subsidise foreign output.




and as a side , the BBC are commercial and do channels with adverts and subscriptions , a lot of people forget "UKgold" , which the UK licence fee payer pays for , but yet has to pay again to watch it,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_(TV_channel)

HappyMJ

enfield_freddy wrote: »

I go for subscription , BUT make the output UK only , why should we subsidise foreign output.

BBC sells programming to foreign broadcasters and in return buys programming in from those foreign countries. It's fair enough and sales should exceed purchases. I don't know why the BBC doesn't sell more programming to overseas broadcasters. There's plenty of viewers in the world who really do like the programming on the BBC and would pay a lot more than they do to watch it.

enfield_freddy

not talking about selling programmes to other countries


the BBC world service provided free of charge costs the UK taxpays £245 million per year.


http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/consult/wsol/wsol_positioning.pdf




when in rome , listen to local output , don,t expect the BBC to transmit to you


the BBC (BRITISH broadcasting Co) should be for people of BRITAIN whilst residing here , and paying UK taxes (etc)

jrtfan

flipperni wrote: »

If no one is present at your main home address watching tv while you are you at your holiday home then your Main home TV licence covers you anyway. There is no need for a a second licence. There is a website called
Tv Licence Resistance that will give you all the facts you need.

That's what I thought too. Having checked the TV Licensing website though

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/second-home-aud8

it says you're covered by your home license on boats, in touring caravans and in vehicles; static caravans, mobile homes and moveable chalets (a declaration must be signed); or if you're using a device that's powered only by its own internal batteries and requires neither an aerial nor to be plugged into the mains.