TV licensing...

[Ben@Forest]

I've been thinking about the TVL over the last few days and trying to put into words why we don't have a telly.

Maybe it's because I object to paying nearly £150 a year to not watch much telly. I suppose if I was a telly addict and it was on from breakfast time to going to bed after midnight, and we had a family of four or five - or even six people - I may think it was worthwhile, but because we don't view like that, it seems quite a poor deal.

I'm not saying I don't want to watch ANY telly at all, but not enough to warrant £150 a year. If I do want to watch something, it's usually on iPlayer etc.

Maybe I'd rather Pay per View than pay a TVL, but why should I when I can watch iPlayer for free?

I suppose there are other points to consider - do you never listen to BBC Radio? - comes out of the licence fee. Do you never go online to check the news or weather on the BBC website? - comes out of the licence fee. And though iPlayer is 'free' when you decide to watch whatever Scandi-noir drama which is currently all the rage the BBC paid for it out of other licence payers money. Without them you couldn't watch it at all. It 's worth noting this website - hosted by the CTC and therefore paid by its members. If there were no members there'd be no website - no whatever thousand posts so far!

Overall I am surprised by people who object to the BBC on its cost - £150.00 a year - the cost of maybe three tickets for a Premiership match? About the cost of two tickets for a headlining pop concert? Less than than the cost of ticket to Glastonbury? You can pay anything from £30.00 upwards to enter all sorts of sportif events. It's £10.00 or more to thrash yourself up and down a windy A-road for an hour. I just don't see the licence fee as bad value and Pay-Per-View would be nothing like as cheap. Though I don't necessarily agree with them there's more merit in the argument made by those people who object to the licence from political/libertarian stance.

[beardy]

I imagine the vast majority of people who are convicted of licence evasion would not consider paying for all those other things that you list either.

We have a rather unequal society where increasingly one half doesnt understand how the other half are living.

[[XAP]Bob]

BBC Radio might be paid for from the license fee, but it is free at point of use.

The NHS might be paid from taxation, but it is free at point of use, and my kids have made use of that repeatedly.

I'm sure they will eventually pay into the system eventually, but then I have paid into the BBC for quite some time, and the quality of programming has gone down significantly (even in my short lifetime)

[Ben@Forest]

I imagine the vast majority of people who are convicted of licence evasion would not consider paying for all those other things that you list either.

But it's not really evasion (though using iPlayer could be described as TV licence avoidance!) it's simply the ideas that firstly the licence is expensive and secondly that all it pays for is the TV. The moment someone sitting their car in a traffic jam switches the radio on to find out if the local BBC radio station is reporting on a burst main or blazing accident they are using the licence fee.

[Ben@Forest]

BBC Radio might be paid for from the license fee, but it is free at point of use.

Yes and BBC TV is free at point of use, your point is?

[kwackers]

and the quality of programming has gone down significantly (even in my short lifetime)

Has it?
You should try re-watching some of the 'quality' programming that used to be on there. I think all that's really happened is you've gotten older and more discerning.

[Mark1978]

Yes and BBC TV is free at point of use, your point is?

No it's not. You have to pay a licence fee to receive all live television broadcasts. That would be like saying it's free to watch Sky TV - except for the fact I give them £50 per month.

If the BBC want to make services available for free outside the licence fee then that's up to them, and people who make use of these services offered without 'subscribing' to television need not feel any guilt in doing so.

[Mark1978]

and the quality of programming has gone down significantly (even in my short lifetime)

Has it?
You should try re-watching some of the 'quality' programming that used to be on there. I think all that's really happened is you've gotten older and more discerning.

Two aspects. Comparing several decades of TV compared to what is on right now, of course there's more good stuff to choose from in the past than there will be if you look at the planner tonight. That and you're right, watching old TV from the 80's etc, there are notable exceptions of course but most of it is terrible.

[Ben@Forest]

No it's not. You have to pay a licence fee to receive all live television broadcasts. That would be like saying it's free to watch Sky TV - except for the fact I give them £50 per month.

If the BBC want to make services available for free outside the licence fee then that's up to them, and people who make use of these services offered without 'subscribing' to television need not feel any guilt in doing so.

I take your point but I think the BBC has a statutory duty (i.e. enshrined in law or if not certainly broadcasting regulations) to provide radio services. It was of course once a 'Radio Licence'.

[Psamathe]

No it's not. You have to pay a licence fee to receive all live television broadcasts. That would be like saying it's free to watch Sky TV - except for the fact I give them £50 per month.

If the BBC want to make services available for free outside the licence fee then that's up to them, and people who make use of these services offered without 'subscribing' to television need not feel any guilt in doing so.

I take your point but I think the BBC has a statutory duty (i.e. enshrined in law or if not certainly broadcasting regulations) to provide radio services. It was of course once a 'Radio Licence'.

They might have a statutory duty for radio, but given how high the TV License fee is these days, do they also have a statutory duty for all their (free) web site stuff, for their smartphone apps (free), etc. BBC seem to continually seek a higher license fee (for higher income), but they see to then spend it on lots of free stuff they have no obligation to provide (as well as paying senior employees obscene bonuses, golden parachute payments, salaries, etc.).

Maybe they take the attitude that most people are license fee payers to the free stuff is mostly for those paying anyway. My argument would be that you cut out much of the web site, free apps, etc. and you reduce the license fee/get better programs/pay top management bigger bonuses.

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

They might have a statutory duty for radio, but given how high the TV License fee is these days, do they also have a statutory duty for all their (free) web site stuff, for their smartphone apps (free), etc. BBC seem to continually seek a higher license fee (for higher income), but they see to then spend it on lots of free stuff they have no obligation to provide (as well as paying senior employees obscene bonuses, golden parachute payments, salaries, etc.).

Maybe they take the attitude that most people are license fee payers to the free stuff is mostly for those paying anyway. My argument would be that you cut out much of the web site, free apps, etc. and you reduce the license fee/get better programs/pay top management bigger bonuses.

And though I'd agree about the often high salaries, big pay-offs, golden handshakes etc I'd still say £145.50 per year is still good value - so it depends upon what you think is 'high' or not. And of course the licence fee was frozen for six years from 2010, so it's not gone up at all in the last four years with two more to go. It's also worth remembering that the people/organisations that made the biggest fuss about the freeze were the unions - constantly striving for the common working man - err... well at least those working for the BBC.

[mjr]

Though I don't necessarily agree with them there's more merit in the argument made by those people who object to the licence from political/libertarian stance.

What about those of us who object to the licence from political/socialist stance that it's being collected by an evil/incompetent outsourcing/externalising capitalist parasite corporation, rather than the BBC?

[Mick F]

I object to paying the TVL out of value for money.
We weren't getting value for money, so I stopped it and got rid of the telly.
Simple as that.

I have no worries about not paying but accessing all that the BBC has to offer. I stop short on live TV of course, but I use all the other facilities - weather, iPlayer, radio, news etc etc - all on line and not "live".

I care not a jot if all this comes out of other people paying the TVL. More fool them!
What would happen to the BBC is everyone did as I do? What would the BBC do if everyone dumped their TVs and stopped paying £150 a year?

If lived in France, I could see all I see now, plus watch live BBCTV if I had a big enough TV aerial. There is no facility for foreigners to pay a UKTVL even if they can access all they can from the BBC paid for by the UK TVL payers.

BBC is basically paid for by the much of the UK population no matter who else has it for free.

[[XAP]Bob]

and the quality of programming has gone down significantly (even in my short lifetime)

Has it?
You should try re-watching some of the 'quality' programming that used to be on there. I think all that's really happened is you've gotten older and more discerning.

No, looking at Horizon, Panorama etc... they have far less content in them (or did when I stopped watching) than they used to.

Where did tomorrow's world go?

[Mick F]

I think it was Horizon that started the rot for me.
It used to be an in-depth grown-up informative and educational programme, but became an entertainment for the masses programme. It became something that I didn't want to watch.