Watch this visit til the very end. Is this acceptable?
It's not a misunderstanding at all. A public broadcaster is a very good thing to have, but access to healthcare is vital. Which is why people will get far more het up about underfunding of the NHS than underfunding of the BBC. You're not comparing like with like.
So, all of you that don’t have a license never watch ‘normal TV’
Nope, as per others I have no way of watching live TV even if I wanted to.
Is that really so hard to comprehend?
So, all of you that don’t have a license never watch ‘normal TV’ – like the news etc, everything is streamed ? Pull the other one !
I didn't watch TV for about 10-12 years, the big screen in the living room was a monitor for the computer next to it.
Since i've moved to sweden, it's now included in general taxation here, so i don't even need to worry about it.
So, all of you that don’t have a license never watch ‘normal TV’ – like the news etc, everything is streamed ?
I rarely watch broadcast TV or iPlayer, but I still pay the license. The BBC has had a huge positive effect on UK telly and media, it has raised the bar over the years. If it goes, we'd all be worse off even if we don't watch personally, in my view.
I have no way of watching live TV even if I wanted to.
Are you not counting watching live on an app (like Iplayer) on a smartphone or live iplayer on a browser window on a computer as 'live tv'? I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if you were able to type the message you have, you could do one of those two things if you wanted to..... I don't have an ariel on our house but I consider when I watch a live streamed tv channel on tv, laptop or smartphone as watching live tv. It's just delivered via another method.
So, all of you that don’t have a license never watch ‘normal TV’ – like the news etc, everything is streamed ? Pull the other one !
It's so weird that that's an alien concept to people.
I rarely watch broadcast TV or iPlayer, but I still pay the license.
I essentially pay the licence for about 1/2 an hour of the Today programme in the morning that I only half listen to, some podcast output and a few things on iPlayer.
I agree that the enforcement is sometimes a bit OOT, but there's a form that makes it stop is there not?
But you’ve wilfully misunderstood the point that both services have been steadily dismantled to become shells of their former selves, pushing people to use private services instead.
Not really. The internet has removed a massive barrier to entry to delivering content to people at home.
What you're seeing is a monopoly becoming a competitive market and it turn out that it's not just BBC, ITV and C4 who can make or commission good TV.
The previous situation, where the Government strictly controlled access to the airwaves, keeping competition very limited, is quite a weird thing looking back (IMO).
The concept of a TV licence is all a bit outdated now due to the way people consume TV. Either make the BBC a subscription service like they do to a certain extent with britbox or fund it though general taxation.
There's an infrastructure element that's funded by the TV licence too isn't there? Freesat and freeview. So if you switch to a subscription, you'd need some sort of line rental, like the telephone?
There’s an infrastructure element that’s funded by the TV licence too isn’t there?
Currently, but can't be long before it gets delivered via broadband, there's just no need for the broadcast network anymore. Bit like paying by cheque for everything, harks back to a previous era....
Even Sky is thinking about ditching their satellites...
I essentially pay the licence for about 1/2 an hour of the Today programme in the morning that I only half listen to, some podcast output and a few things on iPlayer.
My consumption is similar, and I think it's perfectly fair to question whether the 160 quid a year represents good value, both for my personal viewing/listening habits, and in terms of public broadcasting being available for others.
One of my colleagues doesn't have a TV and doesn't watch anything at all, not even YouTube.
She started buying a license a few years ago just to stop the TV licencing people hassling her.
Currently, but can’t be long before it gets delivered via broadband
A 2030 terrestrial TV turnoff was being suggested by Tim Davie. Still shared infrastructure to pay for though, even if it's all streamed.
Still shared infrastructure to pay for though, even if it’s all streamed.
But once you switch off the broadcast network, BBC doesn't have anything special, they'd just use one of the big cloud providers to stream it all, so there'd be nothing (other than content) to actually share.
E.g. Netflix just uses AWS (or did last time I looked).
o, all of you that don’t have a license never watch ‘normal TV’ – like the news etc, everything is streamed
yep - whever we stay at the PIL's, they insist on watching the 10pm news before bed. Its essential apparently. any vaguely interesting news topic (global natural disasters, politics, etc) I will have already read about online in the preceding few hours, and in greater depth, while they were engrosed in Corrie or University Challenge.
Its as idiotic as paying by cheque - as mentioned above; calling a landline rather than a mobile if you want to speak to someone; going to a travel agent to book a simple package holiday; navigating by paper maps and everything else that belongs in the last century
There is a conversation to be had about 'worthy' TV and commercially lucrative TV - I think a BBC or similar has a role to play in ensuring that kind of stuff is generated but I'd agree that in the world of 2023 and beyond with so many sources of tv-alike output its hard to justify the BBC as it stands. A host of different paid for services also has it's downfall though - either having deep pockets to pay for them all or being very selective and only having access to a fraction of the content you might find interesting. We are down to just Amazon prime now plus the terrestrial TV's on demand services - that's plenty for our needs but chop away the terrestrial services and our palette would be limited.
Beyond that - plenty of hate for the BBC and their news coverage - but by god if the alternative was the Americans are offered I'd take the BBC everyday. A news provider that attempts to deliver an unbiased output is essential to functioning democracy imo.
Is there not a degree of morality here. No, you might not watch the BBC on television, but do you or any family members listen to BBC radio. Does anyone ever log onto the BBC Web pages.
No, you don't need a licence to listen to radio or view these pages, but if we don't pay then we just end up with commercial radio with incessant adds and Web news pages that maybe not quite as impartial or as easy to view as the BBC.
Is watching Laura Kuenssberg giving Jeremy Hunt are hard time worth every penny!!!!!
Our licence money, doesn't just fund TV production but a plethora of media that we all consume.
Its as idiotic as paying by cheque – as mentioned above; calling a landline rather than a mobile if you want to speak to someone
What's idiotic is assuming your lived experience is the same as everyone else's. My landline which 'belongs in the last century', works at home where my cutting edge mobile just doesn't, because I live in a rural area with piss poor reception. I know that's a bit last century too and we should all live in overcrowded towns and cities but I'll pass on that too.
So in 64 posts we’ve learned that
1. Those who don’t use the BBC don’t think they should pay for it
2. Those that do use the BBC think everyone should pay for it
Maybe the second category could pay for the first’s TV licenses that they don’t use, then no one pays for services they don’t use and the BBC gets more funding. Win win?
3. I think someone else should pay for my Netflix subscription 😉
Does anyone ever log onto the BBC Web pages.
Nope, I have paid subscriptions to far better news sources....
I can't even recall the last time I even looked at BBC News - just not on my radar.
Is there not a degree of morality here.
Not really, taxation (inc license fees) is a rules based system. You pay what you owe and nothing more.
Obvs you can choose to pay more if you wanted to, although I bet HMRC would struggle to process it.....
Maybe the second category could pay for the first’s TV licenses that they don’t use, then no one pays for services they don’t use and the BBC gets more funding.
No one has to pay for it if they don't use it. Some people don't declare they don't use it so as to keep receiving requests for payment that they can moan about.
Just wrap the whole thing into general taxation, and then they can be lumped in with people who send their kids to private schools and begrudge helping fund state schools, people who haven't yet been identified as having cancer so moan about having to help pay for the NHS, people who refuse to use public transport and complain about subsidies for them... etc etc.
Are you not counting watching live on an app (like Iplayer) on a smartphone or live iplayer on a browser window on a computer as ‘live tv’?
Is it not totally mental (thats not veyr PC, but i cant think of a better word) to have "some time" to watch some TV, and just sit down and watch whatever old crap is being transmitted?
When you can choose to watch a thing you want to watch?
Its like having to guess which building someone might be in before phoning the building, to talk to a person
I’d pay the fee for 6 music alone.
Advert free radio saves my sanity (just).
but it isnt though. Its just that the adverts are for other BBC content. yes there are less, but its not advert free.
As i opened with, im not shirking it, we genuinly dont use it.
Ive filled in the "no license needed" decleration, and still take some issue with the economical descriptions/definitions they use. They could do with a bbeing a bit clearer on the difference between live TV and streaming services.
Ive filled in the “no license needed” decleration
Well done. Job jobbed. It would have been a short dull thread if that was in the first post though.
they could do with a bbeing a bit clearer on the difference between live TV and streaming services
Agreed. Or the law could be revised to be clearer so that the description of it could be simpler... it's really not up to date, is it.
Haven't had a licence for 25+ years across multiple addresses. Dozens of letters. Never a visit.
I don't get chased by the civil aviation authority to prove I dont have a pilots licence, so I'm not engaging with this lot.
They can continue to waste money sending me letters.
The only way anyone ends up in court is if they open the door to one of these goons and admits to watching broadcast TV.
The state sponsored bbc needs to be consigned to the history books.
Interesting crossover between the antivax posters and the anti-BBC posters here. I'm a freeman of the land! I'm not watching TV for interstate commerce!
What you’re seeing is a monopoly becoming a competitive market and it turn out that it’s not just BBC, ITV and C4 who can make or commission good TV.
TV hasn't been a monopoly for over 70 years.
Or the law could be revised to be clearer
Have you read the law?
Its as idiotic as paying by cheque – as mentioned above; calling a landline rather than a mobile if you want to speak to someone; going to a travel agent to book a simple package holiday; navigating by paper maps and everything else that belongs in the last century
Go you, aren't you the cool one.
Interesting crossover between the antivax posters and the anti-BBC posters here. I’m a freeman of the land! I’m not watching TV for interstate commerce!
That seems like somewhat of a stretch.
But once you switch off the broadcast network, BBC doesn’t have anything special, they’d just use one of the big cloud providers to stream it all, so there’d be nothing (other than content) to actually share.
E.g. Netflix just uses AWS (or did last time I looked).
The next generation of freeview/freesat is a bit different though. TVs will have an EPG like now, but live channels will be streamed. It's that bit that has to be paid for, all the free-to-air channels utilise it. iPlayer/ITVX etc. is then integrated like freeview play does at the mo.
just look at the people who are anti BBC. That should tell you all you need to know.
there are no detector vans, and even if you opened the door and the credits to eastenders are blaring out, it’s inadmissible as evidence unless they SEE it, or you admit it.
The evidence of what a witness hears is admissable. Whether it is sufficient is a different question.
i’d wager that almost all of the people convicted were caught because they admitted it.
There may well be 1000-2000 convictions* a week but almost certainly not 1000 contested trials. In fact if there are 1-2 convictions after trial a week I would be amazed. BUT not every conviction* without trial is because someone admitted it - certainly in Scotland most are fixed penalty notices which are issues and assumed accepted unless disputed (akin to a parking ticket rather than speeding ticket).
CG - its interesting that its mostly women. Perhaps they are less argumentative / more compliant. Perhaps they are more likely to respond to the mail. Perhaps they are the people who are home when the licensing people come round. Perhaps they are who buys TVs (and therefore have the registration in their name). Perhaps non-compliant households are more likely to be single parents struggling to get by.
*I'm not sure they are actually convictions if they are fixed penalties - but now I'm being pedantic.
I can’t even recall the last time I even looked at BBC News – just not on my radar.
Slight sidetrack - so where is your first call for news?
I think my online written routine is pretty much always - BBC, followed by Guardian (very aware that I'll get a whiff of confirmation bias as they broadly pander to me and my like) then maybe a float over to Aljazeera for a different world view. BBC is my vanilla before I go looking for opinion.
@convert, not so much not counting as just forgetting it's an option. Fair if pedantic point.
As for land lines, the networks round here are shite, those who do have TV can't get anything other than the basic channels via a relay and DAB is the same. Not that there's anything worth listening to on the commercial spectrum.
I’m not anti BBC nor am I an anti Vaxer. I’m pretty much as bog standard normal as can be. I’m just not a consumer of anything the BBC has to offer. I have no real political leanings and I very rarely delve into the political threads on here.
I live on my own, my girlfriend watches BBC and rightly pays the licence at her house.
I only listen to Radio X or Spotify, I can’t remember when I last listened to BBC radio, Chris Evans would have been on Radio 2 (and I would have been paying for my licence back then). And nor do I use the BBC website.
Each to their own. I’m not in anyway against the BBC, I’m just not going to support a service I do not consume. Making comparisons to the NHS or schooling is ridiculous.
I probably watch maybe 2 hours of TV a month, which would likely be a movie on Netflix or Prime. I do watch GCN Racing after work on my iPad occasionally, but that’s while I’m faffing about or if I’m in the lounge I’ll watch it on the TV (with a firestick). But never would I consider watching BBC, ITV etc.
(I have no issue for funding of other services I don’t consume. I have private healthcare, I haven’t use the NHS for over 30 years. I use the train regularly to avoid driving to work, but even if I didn’t I’d have no objection to finding being used for it. In my view BBC is not an essential service, once I realised that I wasn’t actually using the service I decided to stop paying for it - and I opted out on the website)
Hello @poly have just checked and 74% of convictions over the last 5 years were of women. Report here and confess to not having yet read it:
Should be noted however that the conviction rate overall is down. Nevertheless, this figure does concern me and, whilst they claim that there's no discrimination, frankly there has to be. Have seen from Youtube vids how persistent these men can be (not seen any women, funny that) and how they lie. It's OK for someone like me who knows their rights and absolutely refuses to be intimidated by anyone but it's morally reprehensible that less aware/unaware women are being picked on cos they're viewed as an easy target.
Didn't realise about fixed penalties in Scotland and you may well be right with your thoughts although TVL do say that they visit in the evenings as well as daytime.
Report here and confess to not having yet read it...it’s morally reprehensible that less aware/unaware women are being picked on cos they’re viewed as an easy target.
You should read it. It's complete rubbish that women are being picked on or viewed as an easy target.
This review has found:
• There is no evidence of direct discrimination by TVL.
• Gender is not a factor in the way TVL approaches collecting and enforcing the
licence fee. TVL does not collect gender information and does not use gender
information in its decision making.• Societal factors, that are outside of TVL’s control, remain the significant factors
in explaining the gender disparity. These factors include:o household composition, where around 62% of single households are female led than male led, and all other things being equal you might expect about 10% points more women than men to be prosecuted;
o behavioural factors, where women are more likely to be at home, answer the door (61%) and take charge of household bills;
o financial factors, where women on average have lower incomes than men, make up 60% of employees on low pay and 73% of part-time workers and are more likely to be in financial difficulties than men...
...The review found no obvious directly discriminatory policies and practices in the process and it’s clear there’s no intention to discriminate...Women and men do not appear to be
treated differently.
They may not be being picked on directly, but I can see that some groups are more susceptible to the bullying tactics that are employed, and that doesn't really sit right with me.
BBC Income, year 22-23: £3.74Billion from licence fee, £2.11Billion commercial income. Total £5.85Billion.
(info tucked away on page 48 of 246 page Annual report) -
Quite how they manage to spend £5.85B a year is beyond me. (actualy it isn't. My friend used to work as an IT contractor at the BBC. Him and everyone around him were earning six figure salaries. Also extremely generous pay for their presenters.)
It's a gravy train with a guaranteed income whether or not they produce much quality content.
I can think of a few better places the money could be spent.
You could run the NHS for about ten days.
The NHS has 1.27 m employees. The BBC has 21,000.
I do watch GCN Racing after work on my iPad occasionally, but that’s while I’m faffing about or if I’m in the lounge I’ll watch it on the TV (with a firestick)
Do you watch the racing 'live' or after the event? 😉
The NHS has 1.27 m employees. The BBC has 21,000.
**** off back to GB News
Should be noted however that the conviction rate overall is down. Nevertheless, this figure does concern me and, whilst they claim that there’s no discrimination, frankly there has to be.
I don't know if anyone has done similar analysis on other offences. e.g. shoplifting, speeding, driving without insurance, parking tickets etc. in general more men are convicted of crimes in general, which makes these stats more startling BUT doesn't automatically mean there has either been direct or indirect discrimination.
Have seen from Youtube vids how persistent these men can be (not seen any women, funny that) and how they lie.
I don't believe it should be outsourced and enforced the way it is. I'm always a bit "surprised" that the people who record these things for youtube were just ready and prepared for them coming and "know their rights", and have the awareness to pull their phone out and record. Its almost like they make money from controversial or antagonistic videos. I would be hesitant to say that there is some direct discrimination about the workforce demographics doing this stuff. If you look at bailiffs, utility company payment enforcement, etc they are predominantly men - I think thats as much a reflection on the "customer base" and how they treat an unwanted knock on the door as it is on the people doing the job.
It’s OK for someone like me who knows their rights and absolutely refuses to be intimidated by anyone but it’s morally reprehensible that less aware/unaware women are being picked on cos they’re viewed as an easy target.
The data you would need is about who they originally write to, and at what stage the cases "resolve". My suspicion with no data is that actually women are more likely to seek early resolution (quick admit guilt and pay the fine) than be a beligerent prick about it. Is it Capita's fault if in general women answer the door to TV licensing and say "I'm really sorry, I didn't have enough money so I haven't paid it" rather than men saying "prove it"?
Didn’t realise about fixed penalties in Scotland and you may well be right with your thoughts although TVL do say that they visit in the evenings as well as daytime.
I'd bet that's about being more likely to get someone in, rather than the right person in. I'm surprised in E&W aren't using fixed penalties for this - usually they are "ahead" of the curve in presuming guilt!
