TV license (Telling us you don't need a TV license form_

prowla

Cornucopia said:

prowla said:

Cornucopia said:

prowla said:

Sapindus said:

If the BBC made the licence fee a pay-per-month thing I might just consider paying it over Christmas.  I'm not sure it's worth the bother of setting up a direct debit then cancelling it.  I've also just had the "investigation" letter having recently moved in.  I'm annoyed because it says I ignored heir previous letter, which I didn't because I wasn't here, so they can whistle.

Well, I was thinking of ditching the TV licence and then I realised that there is a heck of a lot of good watching on the BBC and ITV broadcast channels.

I decided that approx £15 a month is a pretty good deal.

Compare that to £5.99 a month for ITVx, $9.99/month for Amazon Prime, etc.

Is it a fair comparison, though?   For a start, you can watch ITV content on-demand without needing a TV Licence or a subscription.   The subscription to ITVx is to obtain the content with minimal ads, which you cannot do with the broadcast version.  

I don't have a TV Licence, so I won't be watching it, but I was shown the Christmas schedules for the main broadcast channels, and it doesn't look like I'll be missing much.

I take your point, but I found ITVx free unwatchable - the ads totally disrupt the viewing; the idea of paying $6 for fewer ads on just one content provider is having a giraffe.

In contrast, BBC has no ads (well, apart from for its own programmes), so I'd say the viewing experience on BBC is better.

But the gist was adding up those individual services (insert Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV, before the "etc.").

I've got NowTV movies for 6 months and I found myself struggling to find movies I wanted to watch.

As far as ads go, I have a Freesat recording box, so I can record broadcast programmes and skip over the ads; that's better than any of the streaming services where you can't skip the ads at all.

I haven't watched ITVx (when I had a TV Licence, I didn't watch ITV either) but we know from viewing figures that ITV remains popular.   

The virtue of BBC having no ads is a slightly controversial take - the reason why there are no ads is because they are legally prohibited, and because the BBC effectively charges c. £14 per month for its services, making it on the more expensive side of "subscription" services.

I've heard the "but all the streaming services together would cost much more" argument before.   I still don't really understand it.  Why would you need all the streaming services, if you didn't need all the streaming services?   

Broadcast recording to avoid ads isn't really a sustainable model - if everyone did that, the broadcasters funded by advertising would quickly go to the wall.

I have no TV Licence, and my subscription service of choice is Youtube Premium.   So, Youtube without ads (bliss) and within that a certain amount of archive from C4, C5 and (even) the BBC, ad-free.   It provides excellent value for me, but I can see that other people might derive excellent value from Netflix, or from their TV Licence.    Each to their own (or at least it would be without the BBC's virtual tanks on my actual lawn).

Well, broadcast gives you BBC, ITV, C4, C5, live footy, etc.

So, like-for-like you'd need to sign up to the equivalent streaming services.

Of course, if (like you) you don't want those services then there is indeed no need to pay for them.

As far as YouTube goes, I find the ads intrusive, but I don't watch enough to merit paying their subscription.

It's an interesting point about viewing figures: I wonder how they get them, how accurate they are, and whether the advertisers can derive from them the value in patronising the services.

The TV (and YT/Prime/whatever) ads do nothing for me; I either skip them, channel-hop, mute the sound, or go make a cuppa whilst they're on.

Price-wise, I previously had Sky, but ditched it because I didn't feel it was good value and I objected to thei inflation-plus annual hikes; it was £30+/month plus needing the £14/month licence. Virgin TV is similar.

Like you say, it's each to their own and every one has their own perspective and preferences.

I considered going licence-free, but decided I do want broadcast TV.

Cornucopia

prowla said:

Cornucopia said:

prowla said:

Cornucopia said:

prowla said:

Sapindus said:

If the BBC made the licence fee a pay-per-month thing I might just consider paying it over Christmas.  I'm not sure it's worth the bother of setting up a direct debit then cancelling it.  I've also just had the "investigation" letter having recently moved in.  I'm annoyed because it says I ignored heir previous letter, which I didn't because I wasn't here, so they can whistle.

Well, I was thinking of ditching the TV licence and then I realised that there is a heck of a lot of good watching on the BBC and ITV broadcast channels.

I decided that approx £15 a month is a pretty good deal.

Compare that to £5.99 a month for ITVx, $9.99/month for Amazon Prime, etc.

Is it a fair comparison, though?   For a start, you can watch ITV content on-demand without needing a TV Licence or a subscription.   The subscription to ITVx is to obtain the content with minimal ads, which you cannot do with the broadcast version.  

I don't have a TV Licence, so I won't be watching it, but I was shown the Christmas schedules for the main broadcast channels, and it doesn't look like I'll be missing much.

I take your point, but I found ITVx free unwatchable - the ads totally disrupt the viewing; the idea of paying $6 for fewer ads on just one content provider is having a giraffe.

In contrast, BBC has no ads (well, apart from for its own programmes), so I'd say the viewing experience on BBC is better.

But the gist was adding up those individual services (insert Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV, before the "etc.").

I've got NowTV movies for 6 months and I found myself struggling to find movies I wanted to watch.

As far as ads go, I have a Freesat recording box, so I can record broadcast programmes and skip over the ads; that's better than any of the streaming services where you can't skip the ads at all.

I haven't watched ITVx (when I had a TV Licence, I didn't watch ITV either) but we know from viewing figures that ITV remains popular.   

The virtue of BBC having no ads is a slightly controversial take - the reason why there are no ads is because they are legally prohibited, and because the BBC effectively charges c. £14 per month for its services, making it on the more expensive side of "subscription" services.

I've heard the "but all the streaming services together would cost much more" argument before.   I still don't really understand it.  Why would you need all the streaming services, if you didn't need all the streaming services?   

Broadcast recording to avoid ads isn't really a sustainable model - if everyone did that, the broadcasters funded by advertising would quickly go to the wall.

I have no TV Licence, and my subscription service of choice is Youtube Premium.   So, Youtube without ads (bliss) and within that a certain amount of archive from C4, C5 and (even) the BBC, ad-free.   It provides excellent value for me, but I can see that other people might derive excellent value from Netflix, or from their TV Licence.    Each to their own (or at least it would be without the BBC's virtual tanks on my actual lawn).

It's an interesting point about viewing figures: I wonder how they get them, how accurate they are, and whether the advertisers can derive from them the value in patronising the services.

Just on this (because I know a bit about it)...

The viewing figures are based on compiling viewing habits from a panel of households (ISTR c. 5000 of them).   They keep track of all their TV viewing using equipment installed in the home.   This data is then compiled and scaled up in the same way that opinion polls work.

https://www.barb.co.uk/

I understand it's reasonably accurate, although I can imagine it is less so now with so many alternatives than it was back in the day of 4 channels.   

The value of advertising within that is quite an interesting question.   Advertisers seem to have backed away from tracking info to determine the value of different advertising on different platforms.   Generally, they assess "brand recognition" using opinion polls, which of course isn't necessarily indicative of increased sales.   I can imagine that the current "broadcast" approach to ads may eventually fail for all but the biggest brands.   What happens then will be interesting.

sheslookinhot

Today I received a letter from TV Licensing headed 10 day Window.

In red lettering, “ We are giving you a 10 day window to get correctly licensed”. 

 They are generously putting my “case” on hold for the next 10 days. Please use
 this 10 day window to sort out “my” TV Licence.

After 10 days, my case will be escalated to the Enforcement team who will schedule a visit to find out why there is no record of a licence at my post code.


A few things, I am correctly “unlicensed” as I do not watch live tv or use iplayer.

I do not have a “case” and I do not need to “sort out my” TV Licence.

2 years ago I filled in the online declaration that no tv licence was required. There is no legal requirement to continuously make such a declaration.

I will look forward to a visit.

wilkko73

sheslookinhot said:

Today I received a letter from TV Licensing headed 10 day Window.

In red lettering, “ We are giving you a 10 day window to get correctly licensed”. 

 They are generously putting my “case” on hold for the next 10 days. Please use
 this 10 day window to sort out “my” TV Licence.

After 10 days, my case will be escalated to the Enforcement team who will schedule a visit to find out why there is no record of a licence at my post code.


A few things, I am correctly “unlicensed” as I do not watch live tv or use iplayer.

I do not have a “case” and I do not need to “sort out my” TV Licence.

2 years ago I filled in the online declaration that no tv licence was required. There is no legal requirement to continuously make such a declaration.

I will look forward to a visit.

wow,so that'a a tactic to make people worry

teaselMay

I also have a declaration of no need for a license. For two years they left me alone completely after first completing it. This January I was asked to redeclare, which seemed fair enough. I was pretty miffed by an email last week though that talked about 'you previously told us ... no-one is watching tv illegally on any device. If this has changed please buy a TV Licence or confirm you don’t need one.'  When I clicked on I don't need a license it was going right back to the beginning screening for whether I needed one, even though the declaration says it's valid until 2026. I gave up, it just seemed to be fishing for folk they could scare into paying.

I did notice the email had an unsubscribe from this mailing list tab in my gmail, so I unsubscribed, not likely anyone has knowingly or willingly subscribed to be bullied into something they don't need.

wilkko73

teaselMay said:

I also have a declaration of no need for a license. For two years they left me alone completely after first completing it. This January I was asked to redeclare, which seemed fair enough. I was pretty miffed by an email last week though that talked about 'you previously told us ... no-one is watching tv illegally on any device. If this has changed please buy a TV Licence or confirm you don’t need one.'  When I clicked on I don't need a license it was going right back to the beginning screening for whether I needed one, even though the declaration says it's valid until 2026. I gave up, it just seemed to be fishing for folk they could scare into paying.

I did notice the email had an unsubscribe from this mailing list tab in my gmail, so I unsubscribed, not likely anyone has knowingly or willingly subscribed to be bullied into something they don't need.

I've seen news articles online this week about letters that people have been receiving saying "Will you be in on December 25? "  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-speaks-out-after-pensioners-34319281

They say those letters were sent out by mistake,which I find hard to believe.

Cornucopia

I don't think it was a mistake.   I think it was a deliberate attempt to get TV Licensing into the news media (which succeeded) and it was a happy coincidence that it appeared to undermine traditional values.

IMHO anyway.