TV Licence Fee

VsUK

I've done some research over the last few months on why the TV Licence fee was set up, what it was for & why we have to pay it. But part of the argument for the TV Licence fee to be required if you watch any live tv, even if it's not provided by the BBC, is that it uses hardware owned by the BBC. So I contacted Sky, NOW TV which is owned by SKY & also Virgin media & I asked them a very clear question. What services do you provide that require BBC's involvement, from their permission to using hardware owned by the BBC. And they responded saying the only services they provide that have any connection to the BBC are the BBC channels & radio stations themselves. So I then contacted the BBC asking why they demand a TV licence fee if I pay Sky to watch Sky Sports live football. Using hardware developed & owned by Sky, on a TV I already paid for & do not require a TV licence to own. They didn't respond. I have sent 7 letters asking the same question to various departments & still got no reply. 

So, I wonder if someone else more knowledgeable on this than I am. Why do we have to pay a TV licence fee that pays for the BBC if I watch any live TV service that has no involvement or connection to the BBC at all. For example NOW TV is an internet streaming service. It has no involvement with the BBC. Why should the BBC profit on the hard work of other companies? Because to me, it sounds like a man up stream of a hydro power plant, demanding a % of its profits after he took a !!!!!! in the stream. 

Neil_Jones

What "hardware owned by the BBC" are you referring to exactly with regards to this?

The TV licence funds the BBC and it powers the eight BBC channels, the national radio networks, the local radio networks, the World Service and the internet services.  Its always been the requirement that you need a licence to watch live broadcasts on any station, not just the BBC.

Consider Sky charge about £85 a month for everything but the kitchen sink in the channel offerings and still shove adverts at you before, during and after programming, whereas Auntie's only asking for £13.12 with no adverts...

Lostintheclouds

Is there anything worth watching on the BBC these days? (genuine question by the way).

cajef

Lostintheclouds said:

Is there anything worth watching on the BBC these days? (genuine question by the way).

That depends entirely on any ones program and viewing preferences, personally I find plenty to watch on the BBC channels so mine are obviously completely different to yours.  

Mickey666

VsUK said:

I've done some research over the last few months on why the TV Licence fee was set up, what it was for & why we have to pay it. But part of the argument for the TV Licence fee to be required if you watch any live tv, even if it's not provided by the BBC, is that it uses hardware owned by the BBC. So I contacted Sky, NOW TV which is owned by SKY & also Virgin media & I asked them a very clear question. What services do you provide that require BBC's involvement, from their permission to using hardware owned by the BBC. And they responded saying the only services they provide that have any connection to the BBC are the BBC channels & radio stations themselves. So I then contacted the BBC asking why they demand a TV licence fee if I pay Sky to watch Sky Sports live football. Using hardware developed & owned by Sky, on a TV I already paid for & do not require a TV licence to own. They didn't respond. I have sent 7 letters asking the same question to various departments & still got no reply. 

So, I wonder if someone else more knowledgeable on this than I am. Why do we have to pay a TV licence fee that pays for the BBC if I watch any live TV service that has no involvement or connection to the BBC at all. For example NOW TV is an internet streaming service. It has no involvement with the BBC. Why should the BBC profit on the hard work of other companies? Because to me, it sounds like a man up stream of a hydro power plant, demanding a % of its profits after he took a !!!!!! in the stream. 

It's complicated and largely lost in the mists of time.

Once upon a time anyone who wanted to transmit anything by radio waves needed a government licence - even the BBC.  Every licence gave the holder a 'callsign' that was supposed to be used so that the origin of the transmission could be identified.  I think the BBC's callsign was '2LO'.  This was back in the 1920s.  Even today, members of the public can obtain a licence for radio transmission on variouis frequencies.  Some frequencies are unregulated, eg CB and PMR, and others require formal qualifications and "Amateur Radio" is still a worldwide hobby today, complete with callsigns to identify each transmitter.

In a world of just the BBC, as it was for quite a long time, licencing was a simple and straightforward affair.  But as technology evolved the licencing rules didn't, which has lead to the ridiculous and unfair system we have today.

The current BBC 'charter' has to be renewed in (I think) 2027 and the inevitable dicussions about funding will almost certainly involve licencing conditions.  I'm anticipating significant changes because the public appetite for the current unjustifiable and illogical licencing rules is waning fast.

The issue of whether the TV (ie BBC) licence is good value for money is completely spurious in my mind.  Firstly, who is to judge how anyone perceives 'good value' and secondly, what about personal choice?  Just because someone thinks something is 'good value' doesn't mean others should be forced to buy it.

Anyway, it's a bit subject and something of a political hot potato, but something has to be done before 2027.

JJ_Egan

Was not it partly registering Wireless to do with prevent German spies radioing  home as well .

pphillips

The simple answer is that viewers have no contract for services with the BBC so the TV licence is effectively a tax to watch live TV and BBC iPlayer at a particular premises. I believe that since the magna carta it has not been possible to raise taxation by royal decree, therefore the legal basis for the TV licence can be found in legislation rather than in the royal (BBC) charter.

JJ_Egan

Which Magna Carta ??

Walbar

After picking through the need and need not requirements for a TV Licence, am I correct in saying that it is as simple as
      if

           I do not watch BBC
          or stream on the iPlayer

          or watch LIVE TV from other channels

     then

           I do not need a TV licence

     Else

           Do I need to inform the BBC I do not require a licence.
Any comments would be appreciated

VsUK

Neil_Jones said:

What "hardware owned by the BBC" are you referring to exactly with regards to this?

The TV licence funds the BBC and it powers the eight BBC channels, the national radio networks, the local radio networks, the World Service and the internet services.  Its always been the requirement that you need a licence to watch live broadcasts on any station, not just the BBC.

Consider Sky charge about £85 a month for everything but the kitchen sink in the channel offerings and still shove adverts at you before, during and after programming, whereas Auntie's only asking for £13.12 with no adverts...

I get what your saying. But sky don't just provide a few channels & radio stations. You have over a 100+ to chose from that offer quality content constantly. Where as the BBC yes is much cheaper & no adverts. But they don't even offer a BBC One+1. So if you have a program conflict, your stuffed. 

Also when you take a Sky contract or Virgin contract. BBC is part of that package & you can't opt out. So the fact it's in the package means you have to pay for it. I was just told this today by someone. This is how the BBC make people pay for a TV licence if they only have sky or virgin. They pay sky & virgin to include their service so we have to pay. 

I cancelled my TV licence fee when I watched a piece on BBC news talking about the Black Pound & calling for people to make more effort to do their shopping from business's owned by black people. I literally was gob smacked & utterly disgusted by it. It's so blatantly racist & yet no one uttered anything about it. So I cancelled my TV licence fee, received a cheque for the refund I paid towards my next TV licence fee as I believe you pay in advance & my existing one still has time left before it expires. I don't watch live TV anymore & haven't for a while. I don't have sky or virgin, just used them as a good example. I mainly use netflix, now tv & amazon prime & the ITV, Channel 4 & 5 catch up services. If there's something on worth watching, which is rare. 

I did some research on the BBC & the things they spend is disgusting. Did you know they have a cafe for free, despite a costa coffer on the ground floor, they all get their drinks for free in the free cafe & the food as well. The BBC spend £50+ thousand on tea & coffee in just 3 months. Continue to book taxi's they pay for but never use. The BBC have made thousands redundant & paid out millions in redundancy payments, only to rehire the same people back on higher wages to do the same jobs they did before. They still book hotel rooms they pay for but never use. They purchased 1,700+ train tickets at a cost of £700. I had to email train operators to find out what the tickets or service was that cost that much money because I couldn't find any single day tickets that cost that munch money. They replied saying this is something they offer by request only. It's called Business executive. They get a carriage or 2 to themselves. Inclusive of drinks, food & so forth. And they don't sell just the 1 ticket, they have to buy the whole carriage, whether they use them or not. 

The BBC are enjoying themselves & living the life on money we're forced to pay for a service that isn't as vital or needed as it once was. 

Mickey666

Walbar said:

After picking through the need and need not requirements for a TV Licence, am I correct in saying that it is as simple as
      if

           I do not watch BBC
          or stream on the iPlayer

          or watch LIVE TV from other channels

     then

           I do not need a TV licence

     Else

           Do I need to inform the BBC I do not require a licence.
Any comments would be appreciated

Almost.

You CAN watch BBC programmes without a licence but NOT if they are live or on iPlayer.

For example, there are many BBC programmes on Netflix, for which you DON'T need a TV licence.  Mad isn't it!

So your algorithm should be:

    If

        I watch ANY live television broadcast   OR   I watch ANY BBC iPlayer content

    Then

       I require a TV Licence.

    Else

       I DON'T require a TV Licence  AND  I don't NEED to inform anyone about it

Note that if you decide not to inform TV Licencing that you don't need a licence then they will likely keep bombarding you with ever more threatening letters about the fact that you are unlicenced.  Depending on your sense of fun you can simply ignore these because they can do NOTHING to you (apart from those threatening letters) as long as you really don't need a TV licence.  You can even withdraw their 'implied right of access' to your property, meaning that even if a TV licencing inspector comes to investigate, they are not allowed onto your property - even to knock on your front door - unless they have a legal warrant . . . which they won't get unless they can give the courts some good reason to suspect you are in breach of the TV licencing laws . . . which they won't be able to do if you really don't watch any live TV or BBC iPlayer.

Lots of info online and plenty of hilarious videos on YouTube (search for TV Licencing Goons).