TV Licensing APR Shock

dc

But you pay twice as much for the ads, than you do for the Beeb, it is built into the cost of the products you buy.

Painless but still twice as much.

AND that lovely Mr Murdoch rubs salt in the wounds by making you pay up to four times as much on top, to watch the ads you have already paid for.:rolleyes:


The Beeb is good value for money and if it wasnt there, you would pay even more.

NOT very Moneysaving?

PS the Beeb also paid to train most of these who work in ITV and Sky.

peter_the_piper

Nikki wrote:

Have to agree with most of the people on this thread. Tv licence is a big waste of my money. I don't listen to the radio as it doesn't cater for my taste in music and very rarely watch the BBC channels. We mainly watch ITV and Sky. Can't say the ads particularly bother me I'd rather have them than pay up for things I don't watch.

We tend to watch BBC as the programs are generally a better quality IMHO. Less American imports, and as for adverts during a Grand Prix---its next to heresy. They don't put them on during the 2 halves of a football match do they? Does anyone agree the AXA insurance ads are worse than Michael Winner?

dc

Having read a little more of the thread,

I agree with the hassle caused by the TV licensing authority, predatory to say the least, BUT this is a private company with a GPO/ Gov Tax dept. history that brought you BT and the Post Office. Basically they consider themselves a Debt Collectors.
It is contracted to collect the money for the Beeb, so again, dont blame the Beeb for its confrontational methods.


NO you do not need a licence for every Tv set in the house, just one.

Multiple licences are for houses divided into flats as each flat requires one.

The licence costs around the same price as buying a daily newspaper.

dc

rustyscrew

BargainHunterCat wrote:

Whilst I'm not sure about the APR comment, I do find it outrageous that TV licensing are cashing in once again.
If it wasn't bad enough that they impose this ridiculous license which you cannot opt out of even if you don't want to watch the BBC channels it supposedly pays for.
It's time we got rid of this outdated unfair license...surely a license should be for something that you need training to use?!
I've stopped watching TV and detuned my telly in protest but TV licensing still hound me like a common criminal! :mad:
I've joined a DVD rental club instead and that way I get to watch what I want to see!!
Remember you dont need a license just to own a TV...only to watch broadcasts although they will try to convince you otherwise.[/QUOTE

It is indeed 'oooooooooutdated' and 'unfair'... I wonder when they are going to start charging tax for 'sweet wine' again?

IanD

darbooka wrote:

Oh and another thing. Is it the case that by law a TV license needs to be procured for each and every TV at your premises?

The licence covers the person named on it and their immediate family at the address specified. If you have a lodger with their own TV, they need a licence. If your offspring are at uni with their own TV, they need their own licence. If you run a hotel/guest house, you need a licence for every TV in the guest rooms.

The thing that bugs me is the BBC banging on about all these free digital channels "uniquely funded by YOU the licence payer". We can't get them witout subscribing to satelite/cable but we still have to pay the full licenece fee.

Mr_Mumble

The World Service is primarily funded by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office through general taxation NOT the license fee/TV tax. Just correcting a common fallacy repeated in this thread. mumble out.

Plums

If you really don't want to pay for your licence in advance and don't want to pay interest, you can always opt to pay by monthly direct debit and then cancel the DD once the licence is paid for. The first five months payments of £24.20 will cover the cost of this year's licence. Then instead of paying just over £10 a month for next year's licence, you can cancel the DD and save the money until your licence expires, then just reapply for the DD again.

Alanw8888

BargainHunterCat wrote:

Remember you dont need a license just to own a TV...only to watch broadcasts although they will try to convince you otherwise.

I am not sure this is correct it was always the case that the licence was required to instal equipment 'capable' of receiving television broadcasts. Even removing the aerial was not sufficient to prevent the need for a licence as the unit was still capable of receiving a broadcast. Some years ago I installed many hundreds of TV sets for CCTV security use and after long discussions with TV Licencing and our own legal department it was found that the TV sets and associated video recorders had to have their TV tuners removed to be 'licence free'. It was pointed out that watching broadcasts was just a means of proving the 'installation' and that the set didnt have to be 'in use' to need a licence' just capable of receiving the signal hence the removal of the tuners. The licence still refers to 'install or use' and includes computers with a broadcast card. You also need a licence for just a 'set top box' even if it is not connected to a TV/monitor. I think set top boxes must come under the 'capable of receiving' section as it is very difficult to watch any broadcasts on just a set top box!
Having just re read the licence nowhere does it mention watching broadcasts only the installation OR use of equipment. It might be worthwhile checking with TV Licencing if you wish to use your DVD player with a standard TV and not pay the licence.
Remember the TVL 'heavy mob' are paid on commission!

bunking_off

Alanw8888's correct.

However, I must profess to being bemused by how worked up people get about the TV license, tax, call it what you want.

£100-odd pounds a year. The complaint appears to be that folk don't like the programmes, or always watch Sky, or whatever. Whilst I wouldn't deny that, if the complaint is that you're paying for something you don't receive, the BBC is a tiddler compared to society as a whole.

What about council tax : that's nearer £2000 for me. "Why should I pay it, because much of it funds schools etc, and I don't have kids". How about general taxation : between income tax and VAT, the figure's probably another factor of ten over council tax. But much of that funds defence (personally I disagree with the Iraq debacle), benefits (never been unemployed, savings would disqualify me if I was) etc etc.

The point is, these are examples of the principle in life that you pay tax for things which you personally may not make use of or necessarily agree with : you might not like it but it's for the greater good of society.

Now, anyone who has been to the USA and turned the TV on can verify that the system we have results in better TV all round than what you get if it's simply left to market forces.

pault123

The arial on my rooftop gives such a poor picture i removed it last year. I get my tv channels solely through NTL cable. Which the signal is broadcast under the road and through my front garden.

I only got my tv license letter last week and have been paying quarterly for the last few years. I am thinking of changed it to monthly DD now because of the £5 "levy" .

As I dont use my tv arial and recieve all my channels through cable do i definetely still need a license? I would have thought my house as such isnt giving off any signals im recieving channels through the airwaves?

Cheers Paul
:beer: