TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

cw18 wrote: »

Which is exactly what I believe the next change to requirements could be. But it shouldn't impact me as I don't watch catch-up either - purely DVDs with the odd foray into the world of Netflix for me.

So please support the calls for legislative change and oppose those who lie and cheat by gaming the system in order to get free viewing which the rest of us all have to pay for.

Cornucopia

I struggle with this. My position is very simple - there is no need for there to be a State permit to watch TV. In fact, it's completely ridiculous.

Once you've reached that conclusion, then the question becomes: how should the BBC be funded, and the most obvious answer to that is Subscription.

I've yet to hear any plausible arguments as to why we need a TV Licence...

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

So please support the calls for legislative change and oppose those who lie and cheat by gaming the system in order to get free viewing which the rest of us all have to pay for.

You seem quite bitter about this. I personally don't have a TV Licence, and I haven't watched TV broadcasts for the entire period I haven't had one. I don't consider myself "lying or cheating" and I think you misunderstand the nature of the Law and also the nature of broadcasting.

Cornucopia

Mr_Marmite wrote: »

Advertising on TV has to be paid for and that money has to come from somewhere. The only place it can come from is a part of what the company charges for its goods/services.

Presumably, though, there is a benefit to the advertisers in taking out advertising, such that their profits, turnover and/or control over fixed costs are better than without advertising. Therefore in the context of economies of scale, advertising may well pay for itself without affecting the price of goods/services.

Of course, there are also businesses like insurance comparison sites who exist to a large extent because of advertising. Their business is, in effect, converting advertising into commission, but presumably the insurers don't pay them any more commission than they would to any other broker (what would be the point?) So for those businesses there is probably little or no net cost to the consumer.

I did a Google search and found the UK annual TV adverting revenue and the number of households. One divided by the other gives about £150 a year. That's totally irrespective of whether you have a TV or not.

If I never buy a new car then why would the cost of that advertising (of which there is a lot) be of any consequence to me? So maybe that group of people who are buying new cars are paying, say, £233 on each new car for advertising, and the rest of us say only £75(*)? That sounds like quite good value for all commercial media.

(*) This is only a strawman argument. I don't believe you can reliably factor-out the cost of advertising like that.

Think about how commercial TV is funded and from whdre the money flows. You may think the TV licence is unfair. Commercial funded TV is far far worse.

Could you give us a true average cost of commercial media to individual citizens taking account of economies of scale? Could you then provide a series of niche figures, say, for people who only buy supermarket own-brands, people who live in yurts and grow their own food, people who never buy cosmetics or brand new cars...

Cornucopia

DavidP24 wrote: »

If you have no intention of watching LIVE TV my advice is to remove the Tuner module from the TV...

I would say that going to the trouble and expense of removing the tuner from a TV is probably an unnecessary step too far.

I agree with your other comments, though.

davemdmnk

does the term 'live tv' include such channels as bbc1+1 or itv1+1? as it seems most channels now have a +1 channel as well so would this be classed the same as catch up tv and therefore no licence is required?

cw18

yes it does

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

I struggle with this. My position is very simple - there is no need for there to be a State permit to watch TV. In fact, it's completely ridiculous.

Once you've reached that conclusion, then the question becomes: how should the BBC be funded, and the most obvious answer to that is Subscription.

I've yet to hear any plausible arguments as to why we need a TV Licence...

The basis of the TV licence is that it applies to anyone who receives TV (regardless of supplier) and that the proceeds are used to fund (mainly) the BBC. The bald statement that it is ridiculous is itself ridiculous; the notion is just as viable as any other taxation etc (eg insurance tax).

Since virtually all (except, probably, at the most a very few thousand of the population) watch at least some TV, then it is reasonable to assume it is everyone but for a very rtiny minority able to reasonably prove their case.

The reason we need a TV licence or some equivalent form of near universal support for the BBC is to keep it free from commercial limitations, constraints and influence and also to permit the vastly greater range and freedom of programming than what is available probably anywhere else in the world. The annual cost of under £150 is tiny in comparison with other providers, who have to bombard their listeners with advertising as well as charge massively for service provision.

Cornucopia wrote: »

You seem quite bitter about this. I personally don't have a TV Licence, and I haven't watched TV broadcasts for the entire period I haven't had one. I don't consider myself "lying or cheating" and I think you misunderstand the nature of the Law and also the nature of broadcasting.

I don't know about bitter, but as a TV licence payer yes I am deeply resentful of those who cheat their way out of paying for the service they receive, the cost of which is reflected in what I have to pay or to the detriment of the service I receive. That is not to accuse you of so doing, if what you say is true then fine, I agree there needs to be a system for those who truly watch no TV to be exempted, but I seriously doubt it genuinely applies to very many.

enfield_freddy

and do you honestly think that if 10,000 more people bought licences tomorrow the cost would drop?




The Government has frozen the licence fee at its 2010 level of £145.50 until 31 March 2017, three months after the current BBC Charter period ends.

DavidP24

Zapito wrote: »

Those people who say they only use catchup should still be required to pay licence because they are taking advantage of the services provided. So that's a whole bunch who need to be excluded from exemption. Plus I'm highly sceptical regarding those who claim never to watch TV, frankly i doubt it. Even those who claim they never watch BBC probably do from time to time. My guess is there are a load of cheats and liars who pretend they don't watch but actually do. Instead of those (few) who genuinely don't have anything to do with TV grumbling about enforcement, they should be grumbling about all the cheats and liars who are obviously gaming the system in order to get free viewing, as those people are bringing you (few) into disrepute.

It is hard to to be offended by your comment, because you think the WORST of people, just because your life revolves being drip fed live TV or PVR does not mean that some of us have not made lifestyle changes. Since getting rid of my TV I do a lot more reading, listen to music without video, I plan leisure activities rather than spending all my time watching the box in the corner.

I also do not read newspapers, my reasons are because they range between ones that try to make me angry about (migrants/benefit claimants/disabled/NHS/BBC etc) anybody but the government to airhead content telling you (fat/salt/chocolate/sex/kale) is terrible one week and good for you the next.

I am not going to be angry because some people watch catchup TV, I did for a while, it helped me evolve my viewing habits to things I want to watch (none of which is catchup or live).

My daughter evolved the same model, she works and 8-6 job from around 7am to 11pm and has 3 to 4 hours commuting a day. So she has better things to do with the life than watch Eastenders or yet another period drama.

The reality is that our Courts are clogged up with people who have not paid their licence because they can't afford it, so we fine them even more money and then imprison them with a criminal record. These are not scum that the newspapers would have you believe, but more like people who are genuinely disabled or just the poorest members of our society.

You resent paying, you do not like the rules and because you have to pay you want everyone else to pay, even if they do not use the product. Maybe you are under some false illusion that you will pay less if more are made to pay? NOPE the TV Licence has never decreased since inception and surely you do not believe that the BBC is a highly efficient well oiled machine with excellent financial management? They already got the green light to put UP the TV Licence in line with inflation.

The cost of Capita is a question in itself, does it pay for itself with its gestapo tactics. Maybe you like over zealous traffic wardens and clampers too. You prefer to have commission based clampers tow away your car to the old days when a traffic warden would just nudge you along, allow you to pick up your wife and only give you a ticket if you took the !!!!.

I grumble about enforcement when it becomes harassment, when representatives knock aggressively at your door waking your kids, when they lie about your rights, lie about their powers, and try to trick people.

If there is a loophole in the law, you cannot blame the people who use that loophole.

We have non domiciles using loopholes
We have most small to medium sized company directors paying themselves dividends rather than salary to avoid double national insurance
We have Vodafone who evaded £6bn and got let off with 2bn
We have vodafone who avoided £84bn when they sold Verizon
We have the banks that had the taxpayers underwrite the trillions they have lost gambing
This week alone China has had 7 trillion wiped off it's share values because of market speculation

But YOU want to go after people who change their viewing habits but remain totally legal and save £12.50 a month.

You would deny us CHOICE, just because you can't be bothered.

So all I can wish for you is that your circumstances change, that you go into a poverty level when you can't afford the TV Licence but are forced to pay, even when you have got rid of your TV.