Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?

[beorhthelm]

I don't think it should be mandatory.

that the issue. i'm content to pay it, but actually dont like the fact that its mandatory for simply owning a TV. internet usage has shifted the debate and this situation cant last much longer.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

that the issue. i'm content to pay it, but actually dont like the fact that its mandatory for simply owning a TV. internet usage has shifted the debate and this situation cant last much longer.

Good point. You pay a radio, TV and Internet license here in Deutschland.

 

[Triggaaar]

If every household has to pay the fee then the BBC has to cater for every household. Somebody who enjoys things like Pointless, Eastenders, Casualty etc should not be expected to pay the fee only for the BBC to not to produce those programmes and merely produce what some decides they 'are good at'!

Do you think Pointless is expensive to produce? You mentioned those shows, I didn't. Are you suggesting that there's not one program produced by the BBC that isn't needed?

 

[Goldstone1976]

that the issue. i'm content to pay it, but actually dont like the fact that its mandatory for simply owning a TV. internet usage has shifted the debate and this situation cant last much longer.

It isn't though.

"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." My emphasis. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I don't think it should be mandatory.

If it were to become optional then I can see how they could enforce the protection of their TV channels in the same way Sky et al do but how would they enforce it on radio ?

For me, the license fee is worth it just for the radio stations - especially as someone who has had to travel the country in my car. The idea that I would have to listen to the crap Heart broadcast across the country rather than having the choice of many excellent BBC channels would drive me to slit my wrists.

 

[halbpro]

Perfectly happy to pay the licence. Radio 4/4 Extra is pretty much all I listen to at work, mixed in with 5 Live Sports Extra when TMS is on. BBC News, in all its forms, is very good too, although I have found myself turning to Al Jazeera at times for a more global perspective (World Service does this pretty well on the radio to be fair).

Then, of course, there's the sports coverage and some TV drama and comedy I enjoy. All in all it ends up being cracking value for money.

 

[WATFORD zero]

One of the few things that is still very good value for money

 

[beorhthelm]

It isn't though.

"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.

and as all TV sets are capable of watching broadcast TV, you have to have a licence for one. or for that matter a VCR or DVR and also applies to TV tuner cards for PCs. without a tuner card PCs, laptops and mobile phones arent capable of receiving broadcast TV, catchup services that are used are not covered as they are not broadcast. hence why the debate is shifting, because the techology is bluring things.

 

[thisistips]

Based on my usage of the BBC. I use the website about 10 times a day and 5 live for about 2 hours a day. Plus TV one or two hours a day. If the BBC didnt exist and someone offered it, advert free with this quality, what would it be worth? I reckon I'd pay £10/month just for 5 live. So this is an absolute bargain.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Radios 3,4,5, 5 extra & 6

Natural history
Science stuff
News
Comedy
Some period drama
History

on the tellybox.

There is so much to like and, yes, admire about the BBC's output. It's a complete bargain.

 

[Goldstone1976]

and as all TV sets are capable of watching broadcast TV, you have to have a licence for one. or for that matter a VCR or DVR and also applies to TV tuner cards for PCs. without a tuner card PCs, laptops and mobile phones arent capable of receiving broadcast TV, catchup services that are used are not covered as they are not broadcast. hence why the debate is shifting, because the techology is bluring things.

The first part of your response is simply not true.

You have to have a licence "..if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.", NOT if you own a device that is capable of receiving a signal as it is broadcast. It is analagous to a fishing licence - you have to have a licence if you fish, not if you own a fishing rod; unlike a gun licence where you have to have a licence to own a gun.

I do agree that the debate is shifting though as tech has developed.

 

[Footsoldier]

No and don't pay it. **** the BBC.

 

[goldstone]

I voted yes, but although I'm happy to pay for the BBC in order to keep it free of fecking commercials I believe the current system is ridiculous. How much does it cost to administer the TV licensing structure? Must be millions. Why not just add the amount to council tax bills as is now being suggested?

 

[beorhthelm]

The first part of your response is simply not true.

go to a shop and buy a TV, they wont sell it unless you provide address - so that it can be fed back to the TV licence authority. technically, you are right if you simply own a TV *and* do not connect it to an ariel then you can avoid the licence. but then what use is it? besides this is splitting hairs (which has been done in case law), the point is to own and use a TV for its primary purpose you must have a licence, there's no option to have a non-BBC, Sky box only TV for example.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

and as all TV sets are capable of watching broadcast TV, you have to have a licence for one. or for that matter a VCR or DVR and also applies to TV tuner cards for PCs. without a tuner card PCs, laptops and mobile phones arent capable of receiving broadcast TV, catchup services that are used are not covered as they are not broadcast. hence why the debate is shifting, because the techology is bluring things.

I can assure you ( as an ex-Capita employee that did a lot of work with TVL ) you DON'T need a licence purely for owning a TV. If it is connected to an ariel or a box such as a Tivo then you do. It is perfectly legal to own a TV and not have a licence.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

It's not advert-free though is it. They play adverts in between shows on BBC1 etc, just not in the middle of them.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

technically, you are right if you simply own a TV *and* do not connect it to an ariel then you can avoid the licence. but then what use is it?

DVD players and games consoles require TVs. My kids have TVs in their bedrooms that aren't connect to any broadcast capability.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I can assure you ( as an ex-Capita employee that did a lot of work with TVL ) you DON'T need a licence purely for owning a TV. If it is connected to an ariel or a box such as a Tivo then you do. It is perfectly legal to own a TV and not have a licence.

When my other half was living in a student house, he removed the plug from his portable TV because money was tight, & he didn't watch any TV. He kept getting letters & visits from the licensing authorities & had to show them the set stored in the basement without a plug.

 

[Goldstone1976]

go to a shop and buy a TV, they wont sell it unless you provide address - so that it can be fed back to the TV licence authority. technically, you are right if you simply own a TV *and* do not connect it to an ariel then you can avoid the licence. but then what use is it? besides this is splitting hairs (which has been done in case law), the point is to own and use a TV for its primary purpose you must have a licence, there's no option to have a non-BBC, Sky box only TV for example.

I have a flat in which I have a TV which I use purely as a display for Netflix and as a large monitor for my computer (when creating presentations, for example). I don't have a licence for that property.

 

[beorhthelm]

I have a flat in which I have a TV which I use purely as a display for Netflix and as a large monitor for my computer (when creating presentations, for example). I don't have a licence for that property.

i see the phrasing of my point early that taken this off on hair splitting, and sorry for that. but put it this way, you will have to provide your name and address to buy a TV for that purpose and if the TV licence people come round you have to show you arent using it for watching broadcasts. that the problem with the current mandatory licence, it is assumed you will be using TV for the primary, common purpose.

(and im sure that if you read the original legislation, rather than the guidance of how it is applied, you do need a licence for that TV if is capable of receiving broadcast. may have changed though)