[Closed] What do I pay my Licence fee for...?

its no surprise they are a bunch of illiterate right wing muppets.

To be fair, it's only the illiterate right wing muppets that are illiterate right wing muppets.

Another +1 for paying if it was not madatory. The BBC is fantastic value. If you've been to pretty much any other country in the world I don't see how you can doubt that. IMO it forces the commercial stations to keep their standards up (not as high as I'd like all the time but definitely better than what's shown abroad) to compete.

id pay if it wasnt mandatory

If you mean, like a bus service that extorts money from you on threat of prosecution even if you intended on walking instead of getting the bus, then yes.

Sell your TV, don't pay the license fee?

I'd pay the license fee just for the radio stations

There's nothing better than sticking radio 4 on during the day while pottering about in the garden. Its aural equivalent of having someone stroke your head while making you a nice cup of tea and some toast. I can't wait to retire so that I can do it full time 😀

Fortunately, you don't need a licence to own a TV.

Jamie,

To be fair, it's only the illiterate right wing muppets that are illiterate right wing muppets.

I accept there are some exceptions and I put that down to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

[i]Fortunately, you don't need a licence to own a TV.[/i]

At the risk of being dragged down into the dark, cold depths of the [i]small print[/i].

At every point of sale that I have purchased a TV, I have been informed that I must provide details which will be passed to the licensing Authority.

Who then dispense said threatening letters, etc, until you prove you are licensed.

So. Please do enlighten me.

I'd happily pay more.
The real issue is the mutually exclusive concepts of good and popular. I would happily pay more for the good, and even more to try and avoid the popular..

Another +1 for paying if it was not madatory. The BBC is fantastic value.

Same here.

But the thing is that part of what makes it so great is that payment [i]is[/i] mandatory, so they have a guaranteed income which can be spent on more minority interest programs.

Much as the mandatory license fee annoys folk (often the same folk who happily pay out much, much more to Sky/Virgin) it is difficult to see any other way to fund the Beeb that would allow it to continue as a public service broadcaster.

The only beef with the beeb is the cost control. It was run by the lovies for years and it rightly needs some challenge on some of the things it is/was paying for.

That said I’d still be happy to pay if it was voluntary.

So. Please do enlighten me.

You need a licence to receive broadcast TV signals, that's it. Owning a TV is fine, watching dvd's, playing games, watching iplayer are all ok.

I will add that Radio 4 comedy needs a shot in the arm, and possibly the face, as it has been piss poor for several years now.

[i]You need a licence to receive broadcast TV signals, that's it. Owning a TV is fine, watching dvd's, playing games, watching iplayer are all ok[/i]

Yes, a correct technicality. I think I now recall that there was a test case.

However, that doesn't stop the rude, thuggish letters.
I've seen one or two and I think they are way OTT, born of an arrogance that you [b]have[/b] to pay.

If the BBC was a service you voluntarily paid for ( as most here would glady do ).

Then the nasty letters Dept would be out of a job....
Oh !, hang on.... would that be a cost saving ?.
😉

Life is sooooo much better (and somewhat cheaper) Without TV .... as ive recently found out for myself 🙂

If the BBC was a service you voluntarily paid for ( as most here would glady do ).

Funny how the Beeb losing F1 is having such an effect on everyone.

I personally would love to see my national team playing the Aussie's in the Rugby Union Autumn internationals, but guess what they're on Sky, the same goes for the cricket.

It's the way of the world people, money talks get over it!!

TBH in this case it is greed talking F1 and bernie are not exactly short of a few bob - I would vent at him rather than the BBC

You need a licence to receive broadcast TV signals, that's it. Owning a TV is fine, watching dvd's, playing games, watching iplayer are all ok

Pretty sure that owning a TV capable of receiving terrestrial TV is the requirement for paying the license, not actually watching it. As such, there was a test case where a guy removed the tuner from his tv so that there was no way it could receive terrestrial signals and made the case successfully that he didn't have to pay the license.

The thing with F1 is that people are complaining because they perceive that the choice was between half of the F1 free and live or all of the F1 free and live whereas I reckon it was more the case that the choice was between no F1 or half of it...

uwe-r - Member
The only beef with the beeb is the cost control. It was run by the lovies for years and it rightly needs some challenge on some of the things it is/was paying for.

This I agree with but it's happening already and changes have been afoot for a while but like most big companies change of culture takes time.

What JY said up there...can't understand why people think it's the Beeb's fault...it would be ridiculous of them to just keep throwing money at it until they outbid Sky. Why don't people get on twitter, facebook, etc and flame the shit out of the F1 drivers, team principles, etc. They're the ones selling out (well, I know it's not them personally, more Bernie et al).

I flipping hate F1 and nearly all motorsport and won't miss it but I see from the F1 threads here every week that it's hugely popular with a lot of people and for that reason I'm sorry that those people can't continue to watch it.

You would just have people free loading if it was not compulsory as you do on here and in life in general

You already have that to a small degree with the Beeb. Some folks (e.g. pypdjl above) proudly proclaim that they don't have a license, but happily watch BBC stuff on iplayer, use the BBC website and listen to BBC radio.

None of that requires a TV License, [i]legally speaking[/i], but it is paid for with license money, so [i]morally speaking[/i] they are still free-loading (to me anyway).

to me anyway

And me.

Pretty sure that owning a TV capable of receiving terrestrial TV is the requirement for paying the license, not actually watching it.

Nope, completely wrong I'm afraid. It's nothing to do with owning any equipment, you have to actually receive the signal.

so morally speaking they are still free-loading (to me anyway).

It's not a moral question when one party is hanging a legal club over your head. Morally I might be happy to watch some ITV, for example, without forking out for a licence, but legally I can't.

Everyone receives the signal as it is broadcast and then transmitted. It is about whether you watch it - and whether your tv us tuned into to be able to watch transmissions if you are denying you watch

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

Morally I might be happy to watch some ITV, for example, without forking out for a licence, but legally I can't.

That's right, because the [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363 ]Communications Act 2003[/url] legally requires you to hold a license if you watch [u]any[/u] broadcast telly.

You don't pay it to watch the BBC. You pay it to watch ANY telly and the money from it funds the BBC.

Look at it this way, they are basically saying, "Okay you can melt your brains with [i]'Danny Dyer's Best of Big Celebrity Talent Pets In The Jungle 5'[/i] as long as you at least let us [i]try[/i] to provide you with something more edifying."

It's the equivalent to letting people smoke but using the money from smoking tax to try and encourage them to stop.

deadlydarcy - Member

I flipping hate F1 and nearly all motorsport and won't miss it but I see from the F1 threads here every week that it's hugely popular with a lot of people and for that reason I'm sorry that those people can't continue to watch it.

Jeez DD, are you sure you belong here? STW standard response seems to be to take delight out of other peoples' disappointment...

We have a little ancient TV somewhere but never watch it.
Occasionally use Iplayer maybe once a month. I've been considering dumping the license along with the scrap TV, but Mrs Mc thinks it's worth it morally for Radio 4. Perhaps so.

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

OK, I'm bang to rights... oops. Maybe it's changed to take account of new ways of accessing it then

Jeez DD, are you sure you belong here? STW standard response seems to be to take delight out of other peoples' disappointment...

🙂

I'm not really feeling myself.

*googles therapists, brizzle*

I listen to Zane Lowe on the way home from work (25 minute journey) 8 days a month. Don't use any of the other BBC services available yet i'm legally obliged to pay £125 a year.

I don't mind paying for Sky because I watch some of the programmes and the kids love their zany cartoons. Surely a BBC subscription fee would be fairer. Those who love and use the BBC could pay twice if they wished.

Euro - Member

I listen to Zane Lowe on the way home from work (25 minute journey) 8 days a month. Don't use any of the other BBC services available yet i'm legally obliged to pay £125 a year.

I don't mind paying for Sky because I watch some of the programmes and the kids love their zany cartoons. Surely a BBC subscription fee would be fairer. Those who love and use the BBC could pay twice if they wished.

surely you pay more for your sky subs than 125 a year?
personally wouldnt give a penny to rupert murdoch even if i did like any of his programming

Don't use any of the other BBC services available yet i'm legally obliged to pay £125 a year.

Really?? Not even the BBC News website? iPlayer?

Surely a BBC subscription fee would be fairer.

Yes it would, BUT if they went to a subscription then they'd have to drop minority interest programming and concentrate on appealing to the masses to get the maximum number of viewers - so they'd just become another ITV.

Also how would you enforce the subscription for radio content? As a paying subscriber I wouldn't be very happy that non-subscribers could listen to the radio I was paying for. Or that [i]my[/i] subscription money was being wasted on Zane Lowe.

I probably do pay more to Sky, but I actually watch some of their output so it doesn't bother me. The decent (imo) BBC programmes (nature/documentary/comedy etc) can usually be found on a Sky channel somewhere. Maybe a year out of date but that's fine by me.

I've never used the iPlayer or Skyplayer(?) for that matter, but make use of the Sky+ feature regularly.

If Sky can scramble a signal that you have to pay to unscramble, surely the mighty beeb could do the same for TV/radio? Analogue TV is due to be phased out sometime soon. Perfect time to do it.

I know it sounds selfish, but I wouldn't care if BBC dropped the minority programmes I currently help fund but don't watch.

I know it sounds selfish

Yes, it does. 😐

If Sky can scramble a signal that you have to pay to unscramble, surely the mighty beeb could do the same for TV/radio?

Simply make every existing radio out there obsolete and force everyone over to DAB radios with encryption and descrambler cards that you have to plug into every radio you use. I'm sure the great British public would love that.

Count your blessings young man, the BBC is wonderful, not a single advertisement. In Spain, there were times where you'd have to sit through at least 10 mins of adverts just before hearing the last sentence of a movie/show.
I do believe there is alot more out there and not just F1 too.

The decent (imo) BBC programmes (nature/documentary/comedy etc) can usually be found on a Sky channel... I wouldn't care if BBC dropped the minority programmes I currently help fund but don't watch.

Sadly these days those [u]are[/u] minority programmes! Well maybe not comedy, but serious nature and documentary shows just don't get the audience numbers that an ITV reality brainfart show can.

deadlydarcy, I didn't realise the license fee was actually a compulsory charity donation for those addicted to watching TV.

GrahamS - Member

Simply make every existing radio out there obsolete and force everyone over to DAB radios with encryption and descrambler cards that you have to plug into every radio you use. I'm sure the great British public would love that.

What you suggest is a little too dramatic. Eastenders fan? 🙂

Digital encoding/encryption isn't an area i know an awful lot about but we have USB dongles in work that are licensed and allow us to access certain features of software. Something similar for digital Radio isn't too much of a stretch surely.

That's right, because the Communications Act 2003 legally requires you to hold a license if you watch any broadcast telly.

Yes, I know how it works thanks. My point was the difference between the legal and moral obligations.

Euro - Member
I listen to Zane Lowe on the way home from work (25 minute journey) 8 days a month. Don't use any of the other BBC services available yet i'm legally obliged to pay £125 a year.

Euro - Member
The decent (imo) BBC programmes (nature/documentary/comedy etc) can usually be found on a Sky channel somewhere. Maybe a year out of date but that's fine by me.

dear me... 🙄

Timc, you can expand on that if you wish.

I think the point is that the programmes you're watching on Sky are BBC productions (or services), which you apparently don't use.

I do use the service tom, and pay for it [b]twice[/b]! Unless the BBC give out their old programmes for free and every penny of my sky sub goes into Murdoch's small change jar.

Digital encoding/encryption isn't an area i know an awful lot about but we have USB dongles in work that are licensed and allow us to access certain features of software. Something similar for digital Radio isn't too much of a stretch surely.

That was my point. It isn't [i]technically[/i] that hard to do. But it would mean shutting down all the existing analogue and unencrypted digital broadcasts of BBC Radio and forcing everyone to buy new radios.

The switchover to digital telly has taken long enough and most people have a lot more radios than they do tellies.

And lets say it is enforced with a "dongle" type device - so you wake up in the morning listening to your alarm clock radio, remove the dongle so you can plug it into the radio in your bathroom while you shower, then pull it out and back into the alarm clock while you get dressed, then out and into the radio in the kitchen for breakfast, then out and into the radio in the car, then out and into your radio at work....

How long before that gets really annoying?

My point was the difference between the legal and moral obligations.

As was mine.

Unless the BBC give out their old programmes for free and every penny of my sky sub goes into Murdoch's small change jar.

The Beeb have to pay Sky to carry it's services - £10m/pa IIRC