Tv licence...no more!

unforeseen

All of those are funded by the governments so all tax payers effectively pay for the licence whether they use the services or not.

donnac2558

The Republic of Ireland does have a TV licence, I get RTE and see ads quite a bit about what will happen if you do not have one.

woody2234

The TV licence is 12 monthly payments of £12-25, you could split the licence into 2 parts 1 for watching TV and radio £6 per month per property and 1 for watching Iplayer and radio player on any device £6-25 per month like people pay monthly for Amazon prime tv £7-99 and Netflix £6 a month

Cornucopia

unforeseen wrote: »

All of those are funded by the governments so all tax payers effectively pay for the licence whether they use the services or not.

None of them gets anything like the amount of public money that the BBC does.

For example, the USA's PBS serves a population 5 times that of the UK, on a public fund around 10% of the BBC's Licence Fee income.

If the BBC's Licence Fee were £14 per year, I don't suppose there would be any opposition to it, nor would it be worth employing questionable tactics to enforce it.

malc_b

As far as I know I've never seen any USA PBS programs on UK TV so I have to wonder if they are any good. If they were any good then they would be shown here, like CSI etc are. BBC programs are shown all round the world so clearly are pretty good and getting the rating figures to match. I don't think Australian TV is model to emulate as I'm told it is dire.

Arguably having the BBC setting such a high standard also improves the standard of ITV, CH4, CH5 etc. since they need to draw audiences away from the BBC in order to sell advertising. This probably explains why it seems that countries without a "BBC" have poor TV (e.g. Australia which I've been told is dire and USA which I've experienced as dire).

Cornucopia

malc_b wrote: »

As far as I know I've never seen any USA PBS programs on UK TV so I have to wonder if they are any good. If they were any good then they would be shown here, like CSI etc are.

There are so many partnerships between PBS and its affiliates and UK broadcasters, I'd be surprised if you hadn't seen any of it. Just three examples: PBS and ITV co-produced Downton Abbey; WGBH (a PBS affiliate) has a 30+-year history of co-productions with the BBC, including prominent series like Horizon and People's Century; and PBS signed a 2015 co-production agreement with the BBC covering 4 nature projects.

Arguably having the BBC setting such a high standard also improves the standard of ITV, CH4, CH5 etc. since they need to draw audiences away from the BBC in order to sell advertising. This probably explains why it seems that countries without a "BBC" have poor TV (e.g. Australia which I've been told is dire and USA which I've experienced as dire).

I doubt that there is anything special about UK broadcasting. I would say that the "special sauce" is simply money. The 3 major FTA broadcasters have a combined program budget of around £4.5bn - and in the case of the BBC, they also have an non-program budget of around £2.4bn.

If they were not producing world-class content on a budget of that scale, then it would be a surprise and a disappointment.

To compare, Netflix has a world-wide content budget of $6bn.

poppasmurf_bewdley

The American PBS system does not have multiple channels like the BBC. Neither does it run numerous radio channels nor the large internet offering such as iPlayer.

And how many channels wouldn't exist if they did not have the BBC to provide TV programmes?

Personally, I wish the government would make it illegal for Sky, Freesat and Freeview to provide TV programmes to anyone not supplying evidence of a valid and up to date TV licence, so that all those who are having a free ride on the back of those who do pay the TV licence could be forced to pay up.

The only fault I can find with the current system is that those who don't pay the licence go to the Magistrate's court. Non payment should become a civil offence and be dealt with through the County Court instead of the Magistrates Court.

Cornucopia

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Personally, I wish the government would make it illegal for Sky, Freesat and Freeview to provide TV programmes to anyone not supplying evidence of a valid and up to date TV licence, so that all those who are having a free ride on the back of those who do pay the TV licence could be forced to pay up.

The BBC has been somewhat duplicitous in this (or at least has been working to a different agenda than most UK citizens would want). Under the old Dealer Notification rules, it had the option to challenge Sky and VM to provide to TV Licensing details of new TV installations (i.e. dishes and STBs). They chose not to make that legal challenge and the rules were subsequently abolished.

The BBC has a role in the on-going development of Freesat and Freeview but has not used that to promote the notion of electronic controls on access. On the contrary, when the BBC took over responsibility for the Freeview specification, it deleted the requirement for a card slot on STBs, to undermine any future attempt to enforce electronic controls. This is historic fact, as documented by Greg Dyke who was DG at the time.

The only fault I can find with the current system is that those who don't pay the licence go to the Magistrate's court. Non payment should become a civil offence and be dealt with through the County Court instead of the Magistrates Court.

My experience with TV Licensing leads me to believe that there are 60-70 issues with the system of varying scale and severity. Most of them have been discussed here over a period of time.

iniltous

Personally I regard the licence fee as quite remarkable value for money, TV and Radio, ( local and National ) and the most trusted /viewed news websites etc, all commercial free.

There must be many who complain about having to pay the licence fee claiming that they never consume any BBC output, but gladly pay ££££'s to watch 'Pay TV' that's full of adverts, and quite likely showing in part BBC produced programmes....and for those who truly don't watch BBC or use Iplayer you can opt out, so what's the problem ?, and if they don't quite believe someone who says they don't watch the BBC or use Iplayer and get a letter or a visit , so what ?, you have nothing to worry about if your claim is true.

Those who state that there is the technology available to ensure only those that use the BBC pay for it kind of miss the point, no doubt those of that view would make museums and library's charge for admittance ,and let them stand commercially on their own feet, and what's next, those with no kids can opt out of paying for schools ?, in good health and prepared to take a chance that you will remain that way, opt out of the NHS ?

onomatopoeia99

Cornucopia wrote: »

If the BBC's Licence Fee were £14 per year, I don't suppose there would be any opposition to it, nor would it be worth employing questionable tactics to enforce it.

Which is why the scope should be widened. Broadband contract? Need a TV licence. Mobile phone contract with data? Need a TV licence. Aerial or satellite dish on the roof? Need a TV licence.

Simple detection, simple enforcement. Only other change I'd suggest would be to make it a directly imprisonable offence not to have one when required. This country really needs to crack down on tax evaders, large scale or small scale, and set an example.

Having had experience of US TV (not just the best bits that we get imported here, but in the round) what we have blows it away in terms of quality and consistency. It is a terrible example to put up of what we could have if the licence fee were abolished.