TV license needed for live TV, but why?

1356

Comments

  • pphillips
    pphillips Posts: 1,631
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    cajef wrote: »
    What good would that do, you still need a licence to watch any other channels as they are being broadcast live and by the way it is a licence not a license.

    If you read earlier in that post I mention how the tv licence has been left behind by catch up services, which also provide licence free access to some BBC programs.
  • cajef
    cajef Posts: 6,264
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    pphillips wrote: »
    If you read earlier in that post I mention how the tv licence has been left behind by catch up services, which also provide licence free access to some BBC programs.
    Not all people use catch up services especially the elderly.
  • onomatopoeia99
    onomatopoeia99 Posts: 6,951
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Cornucopia wrote: »
    It just seems bizarre that the BBC is opposed to funding TV through advertising, except for the 7 commercial TV channels it already owns.
    Which aren't covered by the "public service" remit, as you know.


    The BBC is not prohibited from making money to subsidise the licence fee by licensing the programs it has produced or other commercial ventures, but I as a TV consumer don't want to see it reduced to the lowest common demoninator / "Jeremy Kyle" level that commercial television operates at by being forced down an advertising or subscription based revenue system.


    I found the other poster declaring the licence fee was antiquated hilarious, especially given that most European countries have a licence fee, often more expensive than ours or with the public service broadcaster also carrying advertising (something rarely mentioned by people opposed to it who try to paint the UK as a relic unique in the world in having one) and some, like the Danish, are far more draconian about who has to pay it than UK legislation is.
    Proud member of the wokerati, though I don't eat tofu.Home is where my books are.Solar PV 5.2kWp system, SE facing, >1% shading, installed March 2019.Mortgage free July 2023
  • pphillips
    pphillips Posts: 1,631
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    I found the other poster declaring the licence fee was antiquated hilarious, especially given that most European countries have a licence fee, often more expensive than ours or with the public service broadcaster also carrying advertising (something rarely mentioned by people opposed to it who try to paint the UK as a relic unique in the world in having one) and some, like the Danish, are far more draconian about who has to pay it than UK legislation is.

    Not sure what you find "hilarious" as I wasn't talking about nor do I pretend to know about the tv licence arrangements in other European countries, either currently or historically.
  • Nick_C
    Nick_C Posts: 7,442
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Home Insurance Hacker!
    Forumite
    If people can afford the money for a TV set, then they can afford to pay to watch it. It does amaze me that someone will pay £500-£1000 for a TV and balk at paying £150 for a licence.

    My TV is more than 10 years old and cost about £300 at the time. Owning a TV does not currently cost me anything.

    Watching live TV is more than twice the cost of Netflix which is free of advertising.

    I'm going license free at the end of the month. Not because I can't afford to pay the licence, I can, but because I think the BBC is bloated and wasteful. Very little of their output is public service broadcasting. Their news programs are often factually incorrect. The presenters can't speak English properly, and the whole programming is too PC. They play ludicrous salaries to Z list "celebrities".

    The BBC need to focus on improving quality, cutting back, and giving value for money. Until it does, they will not be getting any more of my money.
  • Nick_C
    Nick_C Posts: 7,442
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Home Insurance Hacker!
    Forumite
    as a TV consumer don't want to see it reduced to the lowest common demoninator

    In my opinion, it already has been
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,146
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 19 July 2019 at 7:14AM
    Which aren't covered by the "public service" remit, as you know.
    Yes... but I'm also not convinced that they are covered by the "Public Purposes", either.
    The BBC is not prohibited from making money to subsidise the licence fee by licensing the programs it has produced or other commercial ventures...
    I think licensing content, selling it, and joint productions are all fine. I'm just not sure that they should be operating commercial channels in competition with the true commercial sector (and, indeed, with the PSB channels that are their primary purpose).
    ...but I as a TV consumer don't want to see it reduced to the lowest common demoninator / "Jeremy Kyle" level that commercial television operates at by being forced down an advertising or subscription based revenue system.
    I think that's something of a jaundiced view and it defies the fact that we also have C4, which is publicly-owned and commercially funded, and now UKTV which is also publicly-owned and commercially funded. If those 7 BBC-owned channels are "lowest common denominator TV" (and I don't think they are) then that would be the fault of the BBC.
    I found the other poster declaring the licence fee was antiquated hilarious, especially given that most European countries have a licence fee, often more expensive than ours or with the public service broadcaster also carrying advertising (something rarely mentioned by people opposed to it who try to paint the UK as a relic unique in the world in having one) and some, like the Danish, are far more draconian about who has to pay it than UK legislation is.
    Sure. There are also a lot countries that have no TV Licence including a growing number that have abolished it in recent years. In particular (and with a nod to post-Brexit allegiances), the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all non-Licence countries.

    The problem for the BBC is that the TV Licence IS becoming increasingly antiquated. The number of Licence-free homes is growing as people desert linear TV. People increasingly will not tolerate the tone and content of TV Licensing communications. Most people with no need for a Licence are quite clear that the BBC's agents have no authority to demand that they prove their innocence.
  • Thank you all for your input. I think I agree that it seems outdated and needs to be looked at. I personally don't have a TV licence (noun) as I don't watch telly that much, so only watch DVDs. However, I think it's a shame if people are prevented from watching other live TV that has nothing to do with the BBC without having a license to fund the BBC. It seems unfair on the viewers and on the other channels. It's like having to pay a company to grow tomatoes (which I don't eat) in order to eat lettuce from another company. Or maybe I just want to eat another company's tomatoes!

    So, we've done the Why. Now how. This seemingly unfair system seems to just be accepted. So how do people get a change to make it fairer?
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,146
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    So, we've done the Why. Now how. This seemingly unfair system seems to just be accepted. So how do people get a change to make it fairer?

    The more I've looked into the TV Licence and its enforcement, the more I've come to believe that Government is not really interested in reforming the Licence Fee or the ridiculous enforcement processes that the BBC operates.

    That's a source of eternal shame on successive Governments who have simply taken the BBC's claims of a system that "basically works" with no professional curiosity whatsoever. Given that TV Licensing are sending millions of enforcement letters per year, and making millions of house call attempts, I find this lack of interest by Government to be completely baffling. Conspiracy theorists suggest that politicians live in fear of the BBC's potential for causing harm to their careers, and although that seems implausible, I struggle to come up with a better explanation.

    On which basis, I think a mass campaign (as happened in New Zealand) is beyond the UK. I think the best we can achieve is to support each other in each making the decision whether to vote with our viewing habits (or not).
  • pphillips
    pphillips Posts: 1,631
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    cajef wrote: »
    Not all people use catch up services especially the elderly.

    I think this raises an important point with regards to the end of free tv licences for the over 75s. At the end of the day, they all need to be made aware of the different options available. Many of them who can't afford the tv licence or don't want to pay will need to be educated about becoming legally licence free and how to adapt to using catch up / on demand services instead.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards