I’ve just heard the figure of £3.4 billion quoted as the proceeds of the BBC license fee. I guess it makes sense – 30 million odd licenses at £100 or so each – but I’ve never done the sum before and not realised how much it actually comes to.

So, the question is – how do they manage to spend this vast amount of cash?

…and they don’t even make Celebrity Big Brother On Ice!!!!

🙂

Lots of overpaid IT contractors, and underpaid production assistants

mostly on wogans coke habit! 😯

Quite easily I imagine.

What your licence fee provides

The BBC provides 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, more than 50 local TV and radio services, the BBC’s website, and the on-demand TV and radio service, BBC iPlayer.

— http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
There are budgets and spending breakdowns available online if you are interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/

£3.4billion isn’t a lot of money really

The BBC provides 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, more than 50 local TV and radio services, the BBC’s website, and the on-demand TV and radio service, BBC iPlayer.

Wow. My ‘TV’ licence fee is subsidising loads of services I’ve never used or heard of.

Wogan doesn’t have a coke habit, his sausage habit though is well out of control.

My ‘TV’ licence fee is subsidising loads of services I’ve never used or heard of

Correct. That’s the great thing about it.

Wow. My ‘TV’ licence fee is subsidising loads of services I’ve never used or heard of.

I dont listen to radio 2/3/4/5/6/1extra/asian netweork
I barely watch the local news.

But on the other hand someone else does. So If I just paid for Radio1, the news, countryfile, live at the appolo, and a handfull of other stuff i’d probably pay the same as i do now as i’d have to pay more for the stuff i do watch as the people who dont watch it wouldn’t.

If it bothers you that much don’t pay it, bin your telly and go for a ride.

nukeproof – Member

The BBC provides 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, more than 50 local TV and radio services, the BBC’s website, and the on-demand TV and radio service, BBC iPlayer.

Wow. My ‘TV’ licence fee is subsidising loads of services I’ve never used or heard of.

Pretty good value for money then isn’t it? Gives you everything you need, and a whole new world to explore to boot.

Wow. My ‘TV’ licence fee is subsidising loads of services I’ve never used or heard of.

Indeed. And very grateful I am too.
Thank you

Stoner
TV-free since 03, but consumer of Radio 4, 2, 7, 6Music, iPlayer, news.bbc.co.uk, and the World Service

Its actually one of the few things I don’t mind paying for + they seem to invest in actually making content rather than just buying it off other people. A quick look through the Sky TV guide and other than sports and movies all the TV seems to be eith er American imports or stuff created be the beeb.

nukeproof

Wow. My ‘TV’ licence fee is subsidising loads of services I’ve never used or heard of.

It’s great i know.

Strictly speaking Stoner, if you are a consumer of iPlayer then you should be paying a TV licence. But fortunately for you they have no way of enforcing that. 🙂

I think I’d consider paying it if I didn’t have a TV to be honest. I get a lot of value out of BBC radio. 🙂

GrahamS – no, viewing timeslip transmission does not require a licence.
Only watching live simultaneous broadcast (whether on “TV” or iPlayer) requires a licence.
I assure you I am VERY well clued up on what is or is not legal regarding the TV Licence 🙂

I only watch archived recordings (can be as “short” delayed as 30 minutes and it still does not require a Licence)

Alright, alright…not complaining. 🙄 Quite happily pay my fee for the BBC TV channels and BBC News website but I didn’t realise how far the fee is being stretched to other services…so let’s not all get defensive about it. 🙂

What annoys me is the huge expense of adverts shown in the cinema. What a waste of money and there is no one to complain to!!

Stoner, you are indeed correct, you don’t legally need a licence fee to watch iPlayer..yet – but I reckon you’re morally obliged to get one 😉

Strictly speaking Stoner, if you are a consumer of iPlayer then you should be paying a TV licence.

No he shoon’t.

The licence fee is only enforceable, if you have equipment capable of receiving a TV signal as it is broadcast live. This can include televisions, set-top boxes, DVD/Video recorders, mobile ‘phones and home computers. iPlayer is a watch-on-demand services, and therefore does not in any way require the viewer to have a licence.

The BBC are trialling a live broadcast service via tinternet. Technically, this means your home computer is now a device capable of receiving a live broadcast. However, the Law is a bit grey on this issue so far, as many people will not be using their computers to watch TV, or even be aware of this service, so would not necessarily be liable to pay the fee. Plus, there’s a bit of Law which states that a licence can only be required if the bit of equipment was bought/obtained with the express intention of watching TV broadcasts on. So, a mobile ‘phone may be advertised as being able to receive a TV broadcast signal, thus qualifying it, but a PC would not, so the buyer would not be aware of this. The BBC are not allowed, by Law, to demand a licence fee off someone just because they bought a home computer.

As new technologies are developed, we will surely see less and less TV stuff broadcast via conventional means. In 5 or 6 years time, most homes in the UK will have fibre-optic broadband cables, down which TV content can be sent.

I imagine that in the near viewers, only those who pay a licence fee will be able to watch all BBC content; it will surely be easy to have some sort of PIN or keycard thingy, to be able to access BBC content, in the same way that you need specific technology to be able to watch SKY stuff, etc.

I am totally opposed to the way the BBC is allowed to demand you pay a licence fee, just because you might watch something. Cheeky bastards.

I reckon they should separate out the Public Service Broadcasting stuff (News, Educational documentaries, Sports, etc) form the Entertainment content (Game Shows, Chat Shows, Light Entertainment, EastEnders, Wossy, etc), and offer separate packages to viewers. I’d happily pay for the good stuff, and would be perfectly happy not to be able to receive hours and hours of shite.

Hopefully, this will be possible within the next few years.

For the moment, I do not have a telly, so will not be paying a licence fee.

Besides, there are other, perfectly legal ways to watch telly via tinternet, if you really want it.

I reckon you’re morally obliged to get one

Not while they’re still employing Jonathan Ross I’m not 🙂

Second that, Stoner! Totally with you on that one. I refuse to contribute anything to that man’s salary.

Or Chris Moyles.

Wogan doesn’t have a coke habit, his sausage habit though is well out of control.

[img]http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/1016wogan.jpg[/img]

Indeed 😯

Think I’ve argued this with you before RudeBoy, but the point is that Public Service Broadcasting isn’t simply limited to special interest documentaries about the history of meringues.

PSB also greatly influences the plot points of popular dramas, like Eastenders, and attempts to avoid political bias on chat shows and the like.

You can’t realistically separate out the PSB from non-PSB because, in theory at least, the PSB guidelines affect all BBC productions.

I am totally opposed to the way the BBC is allowed to demand you pay a licence fee, just because you might watch something. Cheeky bastards.

I reckon they should separate out the Public Service Broadcasting stuff (News, Educational documentaries, Sports, etc) form the Entertainment content (Game Shows, Chat Shows, Light Entertainment, EastEnders, Wossy, etc), and offer separate packages to viewers. I’d happily pay for the good stuff, and would be perfectly happy not to be able to receive hours of shite.

Bizarre argument from you, RB- you wouldn’t advocate paying, say, taxes on the basis of services used, or expecting a refund on the services you think are crap, would you?

As it is, you have made the decision not to take the service, as is your right, and to waive paying the fee. To expect the bbc to produce a personalised package for you (which is really what you’re asking for – you want to pay only for those services you think are worthwhile – your opinion of worthwhile may differ to mine) is really rather selfish of you, don’t you think?

ourkidsam: is our Terry nursing a semi there..? 😯

I reckon you’re morally obliged to get one

Not while they’re still employing Jonathan Ross I’m not [:)]

And have you applied that rationale to taxation as well (I have a suspicion you may have, to a degree, but you get my drift..)?

yup – on Points of View!

comments made for humorous effect do not neccessarily define my approach to taxation.

Maybe I should put a disclaimer instead of a smiley for the hard of thinking…. 🙂

vinneyh; I don’t think it’s selfish at all. SKY and Virgin etc manage to offer packages their customers can ‘customize’, so why can’t the Beeb?

I think this would be fairer, actually. in this way, the separate sections would be more self-financing, thorough their respective revenues, and it would mean that those with no interest in Celebrities Dancing on Cum or the blatant promotional vehicle that is Wossy, woon’t have to be helping to finance such rubbish. Wossy, I take particular offence to, because it’s merely a thinly-veiled tool for promoting whichever guests new book/single/album/film/whatever. No ‘advertising’ on the BBC? My arse. And don’t get me started on Wossies £562 Billion a year salary…

I would be perfectly happy for a portion of a licence fee I paid, to go toward financing kids shows and signed shows and that. The same way that I have no problem with some of my tax money helping to pay for stuff for disabled people etc; something that don’t affect me, but is vital for others. No problem at all.

But I resent helping to fund MPs lavish lifestyles, as I suspect many people do.

See? I don’t think I’m being selfish; I think I’m actually being pretty reasonable, really.

Rudeboy as usual is talking rubbish. You don’t need a licence for having receiving equipment, the only thing you require a licence for is actually receiving broadcast transmissions.

WTF are you talking about, pypdjl??????

You don’t need a licence for having receiving equipment, the only thing you require a licence for is actually receiving broadcast transmissions.

So, tell me how I can watch TV, if I don’t posses any of that equipment, then?

Are you trying to sound clever or something?

Cheeze…

Stoner, I missed the smiley :oops:. How then, are you helping to pay for the costs of the bits of the service that you are using (albeit in a time delayed fashion)?

RudeBoy: again you’re missing the point that some gash shows like “Celebrities Dancing on Cum” actually generate funds for the Beeb (by using phoneline polls or by providing material that can be sold to other networks) which can then be used to fund the less popular documentaries, news and such.

If you decided to ringfence the funding then you would find the exact opposite of what (I think) you want would happen.

i.e. everyone would buy “Celebs on Thin Ice” and only a minority would buy specialist or educational shows – leaving them with reduced funding, which would mean they got worse, which means less funds, etc etc until all you are left with is popular light entertainment. On Ice.

RB, I see what you’re saying, but don’t forget that sky and virgin both package up their offerings in such a way that you’re forced to pay for stuff that you don’t won’t- each package will, I think, have some channels that you won’t look at, and you’re subsidising those.

The licence is not for the ownership of receiving equipment, but for its use to receive live broadcast. Its a very important part of the law and covers detuned tvs as well as other equipment technically capable of receiving tv broadcasts but not actually used for doing so (such as PCs with or without TV tuners).

It has a significant knock on to the evidencial requirements for both prosecution and warrants to search. Neither are going to happen wihtout either evidence by confession (most common) or evidence of actually being witnessed using the equipment to receive live broadcast, not simply evidence of ownership.

Hmm. Praps.

But I still object to having to help finance crap on TV.

I struggle to grasp exactly how Celebrities Dancing on Cum is in any way part of ‘Public Service Broadcasting’…

It is very simple: you don’t need a licence to own a TV or a PC or a mobile phone or anything else, whether or not they are capable of receiving transmissions is completely irrelevant.

How then, are you helping to pay for the costs of the bits of the service that you are using

I dont.

Much like I dont help pay for additional policing at a football match (paid for by the club) even though I might benefit from it.
Or tax on North Sea Oil extraction
Or HGV driver’s licence
Or stamp duty on sharedealing

In all cases I benefit from the use of funds that they raise (as a citizen) without having to make a contribution for the benefit I receive 🙂

The joys of taxation, so the “governement” can spend my money on things I wouldnt choose to. Like Jonathan Ross.