Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

Dyson

mute_posting wrote: »

A TV Licence costs £139.50 for colour and £47.00 for black and white. (www.tvlicensing.co.uk)

A total rip-off.

I purchased on 31/03 to miss increase (first license, moving into new flat this week) yet TVL craftily set up DD over 4 months instead of 5 :mad: to pay for this years (they say on the site if it is your 1st and you pay monthly DD current year is paid for months 1-5, and next years start to be paid for in month 6)

Hi, unfortunately they'll have you another way ... TV license is the same as road tax, in the sense that whatever day of the month you purchase it on, that counts as a fuill month - so your TV license will run out on 28 Feb next year. You've saved £4, but lost a month of license - which is £11.50.

I found this out to my cost this year ... as I purchased on 31 Mar last year I got the renewal saying my license ran out at the end of Feb. I am so incensed over it, that I have not renewed. It's not as if the technology doesn't exist in this day and age that they can't give a license for 365/366 days from whenever you purchase it. It is disgusting. :mad:

I have therefore given up watching TV and am getting a lot more work, DIY, studying and other udeful things done instead.

Having said all that - I do actually beleive the TV license is a good thing. ITV churns out an absolute load of tat. It is worthless. OK, BBC does produce a lot of tat as well, but they also produce a number of excellent informative and educational programs. It also produces quality news, a load of radio stations, and some great and innovative comedy. I guess the license allows it to take more risks and not have to weigh everything from a purely commercial angle.

I'm disgusted by losing the month and abstain from watching because of it, but I don't want us to lose the public service broadcasting ethos of the BBC (there is at least some remaining).

:j BTW - IMPORTANT - sorry to shout, but people do not realise this ... if you do not use a TV/video/PC (or anything else) to receive a TV signal you do not have to have a TV license .... ie you do not need a license if you have a TV but use it purely 100% for watching DVDs. I confirmed this with the license people when I rang to tell them I wasn't renewing.

regards,
Dave

Dyson

Gemmzie wrote: »

I thought that if a TV was in the property and had the capability to receive TV signals then you needed a license? If so, then with more TFT monitors becoming able to receive TV or with TV built-in, then surely a licence will be needed for those?

Hi Gemmzie - see my post below - No, if you do not use any equipment to receive the broadcast signal, then you do not need a license. If you use a TV purely for watching DVDs, then you do not need a license. I confirmed this with them when I rang to tell them I wasn't renewing.

Regards,
Dave

ronrapp

I've read a lot of comments against this topic and I truly believe that people are expressing their honest opinion which is what this forum is all about. But I'm surprised to see so little support for what is a great British anomaly. I've traveled extensively and watched TV in many parts of the world and listened to their news programs. But I can tell you this I almost kiss my television Pope style when I get home.The average quality of programs in this country is so high. If you ask your self why the answer is not commercial TV or public broadcasting it's the fact we have both in harmony. It's like a healthy eating it's all about balance. Tomorrow if you stopped paying for public broadcasting the commercial stations would fill the airwaves and probably still fleece you of the equivalent cash and fill your prime time with back to back adverts. Either way financially or culturally we would be more than £139.50 worse off!

valiant

mikemidlands wrote: »

really boring note re 'detecter vans' (ex tv engineer)
they used to work by detecting 3 different frequency signals emited by standard tv's
1. detect a 15.625kHz oscilator ( line signal confirmed a TV was present)

2. local oscilator in tuner ( about 500Mhz) this determind what channel you were watching.

3. A 4.43361875 Mhz confirmed the TV was a colour one (reference osc)

none of the above are valid if you have a LCD/Plasma/freeview its all different for digital..see see I told you it was boring:rotfl:

Interesting (I mean it); but academic because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And, for whatever reason (it doesn't matter), in over 50 years there has NEVER been a successful prosecution brought against a license evader based, even on part, on evidence from a detector van.

bears1404

Disappointing to see how the vote is going against BBC.

1. Compare with what you get for £16 basic SKY package.

2. Do you really want to rely on the 'tabloid' news provided by ITV, or the Murdoch controlled Skynews?

3. In fairness, SKY and CH4 and CH5 are bringing over some good US shows, but what quality original programming have they provided over last decade?

4. The Office, Extras, Palin's travels, Attenborough's wildlife..........do you think any of these would have been produced by any commercial station? No, and nor would much of the other unique high quality stuff the Beeb produces. Yes, they are just as capable of producing dross, but there are always a few gems that no-one else ANYWHERE in the world would produce.

5. BBC Radio. Again, pretty much unmatched anywhere - try travelling in the USA and being faced with either music stations which either all have the same 'pop' tracks playing, country and western or, worst of all - 'talk radio' - 99% of which is appalling right wing tripe.

£135 ? A lot of money, probably too much - but far more palatable than the alternatives.

mute_posting

What??? full months only - the cheecky ****ers I doub't I'll be renewing it next year in that case - I can see that DD being cancelled!

has anyone else ever heard of or had that experience (i.e. buy 31/03/08 and it only runs until 28/02/09)??? I can't find any info anywhere else to back it up

Badger_Lady

^^ Yep, it's the same as car tax

Schwade

bears1404 wrote: »

Disappointing to see how the vote is going against BBC.

1. Compare with what you get for £16 basic SKY package.

But I have a CHOICE not to get SKY. I have no choice with BBC. E.g. If I want to only watch CH4, ITV and not BBC, I still have to pay BBC.

2. Do you really want to rely on the 'tabloid' news provided by ITV, or the Murdoch controlled Skynews?

The same argument could be used for newspapers but the irony is we don't have a state-funded newspapers. I guess you don't read the FT since it is tabloid news eh?

3. In fairness, SKY and CH4 and CH5 are bringing over some good US shows, but what quality original programming have they provided over last decade?

Lots. And that is why lots of people (as shown in the above posts) CHOOSE to pay for SKY and watch CH4 and CH5 more than BBC. Moral of the story is - "quality" original programming is subjective.

4. The Office, Extras, Palin's travels, Attenborough's wildlife..........do you think any of these would have been produced by any commercial station? No, and nor would much of the other unique high quality stuff the Beeb produces. Yes, they are just as capable of producing dross, but there are always a few gems that no-one else ANYWHERE in the world would produce.

You just mentioned that the US shows were good. So if both commerical and state-funded produce good and bad programmes, there is no need for the licence fee to "maintain" quality.

5. BBC Radio. Again, pretty much unmatched anywhere - try travelling in the USA and being faced with either music stations which either all have the same 'pop' tracks playing, country and western or, worst of all - 'talk radio' - 99% of which is appalling right wing tripe.

Your subjective opinion. Other people's opinions are different and they should have a CHOICE not to pay for something they don't use or enjoy.

£135 ? A lot of money, probably too much - but far more palatable than the alternatives.

The alternatives are (1) free or (2) you only pay for BBC if you want it - which is FAR MORE palatable than a mandatory fee that increases every year just to watch non-BBC channels.

To me, the licensing fee is like those additional "extras" that Banks charges £10 per month on your current account. The only difference is, you can opt out of those extras if you want. For BBC, you can't.

mute_posting

Badger_Lady wrote: »

^^ Yep, it's the same as car tax

But where does it say that - I can't find any mention anywhere

I can understand Car tax only running for whole months because it makes evaders easier to spot because all the current months discs are one colour.

Also if it is the case I'm surprised Martin advised to buy before the price went up if basically you are saving £4 but forfeiting £11.50 becasue you loose the month's benefit as somebody said earlier.

Schwade

rikreschem wrote: »

Think of life without the BBC.
No Monty Python
No Goon Show
No Steptoe
No Dads Army
No Attenborough
No Paxman
No Hancock
No Clarkson
The world would be a much poorer place

Think of life without commerical produced programmes:

No 24
No Lost
No Prison Break
No House
No CH4 documentaries

Moral of the story 1 - we don't need a state-funded company to product good programmes. Both can product good and bad shows.

Moral of the story 2 - everyone likes different things. Give people the choice to pay the licence fee. E.g. if they only want to watch CH5, you shouldn't have to pay for BBC.