Is the TV licence worth £145.50 a year?

[sten_super]

Personally, if the BBC were a set of subscription channels costing £145.50 a year, I wouldn't bother. I watch BBC News in preference to any other station's news output, but there's really nothing else that I'd be bothered for and the News alone isn't worth the cost.

What if that £145.50 was for access to the TV channels, iPlayer and website? Long term they could probably paywall the radio stations as well (if/when they become streamed rather than radio broadcasts). If they move to a subscription service they may well paywall everything they possibly can, so it's not just the TV channels that you'd lose.

 

[clippedgull]

I pay £84 per month so over £1000 a year for sky which includes the BBC channels so why should I pay another £145 for channels that I technically have already paid for.

SKY are not allowed to charge for free to air channels like the BBC, ITV Chan 4 etc. If you cancelled your subscription to SKY you would still be able to view the afore mentioned channels.

 

[cunning fergus]

You are aware that not everything in the EU is free to everyone else. An example is the NHS. Why can't the same be for the BBC?

Of course I do, however do you know how a single market should work?

As you are struggling I will spell it out…………..it means equal access to the market for all, not some get one right and others get another……………..that is why it’s is being referred to as the EU’s SINGLE DIGITAL MARKET. If the BBC charges a licence in the UK and a subscription in the EU it won’t be a single market.

As for the NHS, there is of course the EU Services Directive which I understand means it must be accessible to anyone in the EU, albeit other EU states foot the bill. So a single EU healthcare market will undoubtedly come in time…………….. when that ship docks it will be a delicious irony for (say) UKIP to argue that the UK has 24 hours to save the NHS and the pro EU enthusiasts to argue to the contrary. I will look forward to that debate.

Of course, the NHS is not free if they can identify who uses the NHS in the first place………………..the minutes from this Parliamentary Committee provide evidence they can’t, so it’s already free for many.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmpublic/immigration/131029/am/131029s01.htm

 

[chaileyjem]

The BBC in 2015 (online, tv, radio) is used by 97% of the BBC's population and thats rising.
Even with sport where obviously rights are competitive, the BBC shows only 3% of the hours of sport broadcast in the UK, but nonetheless attracts 45% of the viewing.

 

[father_and_son]

What if that £145.50 was for access to the TV channels, iPlayer and website? Long term they could probably paywall the radio stations as well (if/when they become streamed rather than radio broadcasts). If they move to a subscription service they may well paywall everything they possibly can, so it's not just the TV channels that you'd lose.

No. The TV licence is very specific. It is a tax on watching live television broadcasts. You can watch any catch up service (including iPlayer) without a TV licence [at present] so long as what you watch isn't being broadcast live as you watch it.

So, technically, iplayer, bbc website & bbc radio are all FREE services. iPlayer and the website have some Geo-fencing of content so that you have to be in the UK to access it, but that's the only restriction.


If they moved to a subs model (and I think they should.... playing the BBC [via the government] to watch SKY is a crazy state of affairs!)... then I would accept that I would lose, potentially, all of the content they produce. But then I really don't think I'd miss it. The BBC website is now all about video clips (I learnt to read a long time ago... I'm happy to read!) and I haven't listened to BBC radio since I was a teenager and cared about the charts.

 

[drew]

Of course I do, however do you know how a single market should work?

As you are struggling I will spell it out…………..it means equal access to the market for all, not some get one right and others get another……………..that is why it’s is being referred to as the EU’s SINGLE DIGITAL MARKET. If the BBC charges a licence in the UK and a subscription in the EU it won’t be a single market.

As for the NHS, there is of course the EU Services Directive which I understand means it must be accessible to anyone in the EU, albeit other EU states foot the bill. So a single EU healthcare market will undoubtedly come in time…………….. when that ship docks it will be a delicious irony for (say) UKIP to argue that the UK has 24 hours to save the NHS and the pro EU enthusiasts to argue to the contrary. I will look forward to that debate.

Of course, the NHS is not free if they can identify who uses the NHS in the first place………………..the minutes from this Parliamentary Committee provide evidence they can’t, so it’s already free for many.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmpublic/immigration/131029/am/131029s01.htm

Your pathetic. You've got the proverbial bee in your bonnet about having to pay a licence fee and now come up with all this crap about the whole of the EU being a totally single market. I take it you can't stand the BBC and can't stand the EU.

 

[sten_super]

No. The TV licence is very specific. It is a tax on watching live television broadcasts. You can watch any catch up service (including iPlayer) without a TV licence [at present] so long as what you watch isn't being broadcast live as you watch it.

So, technically, iplayer, bbc website & bbc radio are all FREE services. iPlayer and the website have some Geo-fencing of content so that you have to be in the UK to access it, but that's the only restriction.


If they moved to a subs model (and I think they should.... playing the BBC [via the government] to watch SKY is a crazy state of affairs!)... then I would accept that I would lose, potentially, all of the content they produce. But then I really don't think I'd miss it. The BBC website is now all about video clips (I learnt to read a long time ago... I'm happy to read!) and I haven't listened to BBC radio since I was a teenager and cared about the charts.

Yes, I know they are currently free services. That's why I phrased the question as I did - because if it moved to a subscription service they would definitely not all remain as free services. The alternative to the license fee is not just a subscription TV service, but a subscription service for (at the very least) TV + iPlayer and quite possibly TV + iPlayer + website. To suggest anything else is a false comparison.

I think the £145.50 is very good value for the range of services provided, even though I use only a very limited amount of them.

 

[cunning fergus]

The EU digital market is about geoblocking not tv though.
If you advertise on non-uk iplayers then it is free for all the EU.
The iplayer is free in the UK too. So what has this single market got to do with anything?

No its not, its about much more incl. data protection, copyright, licencing, broadband provision..............however you seem to know all about it, and happy with its introduction.

Not everyone is though.

http://www.screendaily.com/news/uk-industry-wary-of-devastating-eu-digital-reform/5084348.article

 

[cunning fergus]

Your pathetic. You've got the proverbial bee in your bonnet about having to pay a licence fee and now come up with all this crap about the whole of the EU being a totally single market. I take it you can't stand the BBC and can't stand the EU.

You are, not Your.

I dont have a bee in my bonnet, I raised this "crap" single digital market point because it has the potential to change how the BBC charge licence fees in the UK, as does the change in legislation to decriminalise non payment.

Either way I expect such change will mean I (and others in the UK) can stop paying for a service we dont want.............which is how it should work in a mature democracy.

If that change is delivered by the EU, so be it, the fact that such change will have been imposed on the UK by individuals unelected by the British electorate tells you why I have an issue with the EU.

 

[jimbob5]

Your pathetic. You've got the proverbial bee in your bonnet about having to pay a licence fee and now come up with all this crap about the whole of the EU being a totally single market. I take it you can't stand the BBC and can't stand the EU.

'you're' not your

 

[drew]

'you're' not your

My apologies and you're right but perhaps would have been better to refer you to post 140!

 

[jimbob5]

My apologies and you're right but perhaps would have been better to refer you to post 140!

perhaps 'I' would have been better not 'perhaps would have been better'

 

[father_and_son]

Yes, I know they are currently free services. That's why I phrased the question as I did - because if it moved to a subscription service they would definitely not all remain as free services. The alternative to the license fee is not just a subscription TV service, but a subscription service for (at the very least) TV + iPlayer and quite possibly TV + iPlayer + website. To suggest anything else is a false comparison.

I think the £145.50 is very good value for the range of services provided, even though I use only a very limited amount of them.

Let's clear this up before the thread descends into the battle between knowing your sh1t and knowing you're sh1t.

I think we agree on what the BBC should/would look like and that most/all their services (I doubt the website would be included, but think everything else would) would be subs only.

I think the only thing we disagree on is whether £145.50 is value for money for the content on a subscription basis. You say it is, but I say it isn't. The quantity of quality programming has crashed through the floor in the past decade as they have raced to cater for the lowest common denominator. I want them to go to the subscription model, so that I can cancel the DD for the licence fee and continue to enjoy the relatively small amount of TV I do watch, which is all provided by SKY, for less money than I shell out now.

 

[drew]

I or anyone could have referred you.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Managed to get some of my US friends and work colleagues converted to watching BBC news (including some who were former Fox News fans) – they’re all impressed with the fact that it’s impartial, doesn’t add a political slant and presents all sides of an argument.

Now, if only I could get them to stop drinking Bud Shite………

 

[Downlander]

you're confused, your £84 p/m is for Sky, not for BBC. though this does sort of show the heart of the matter, one you can chose the other you cant. i think its "worth it" but im not sure id pay if i didnt have to. i also wonder how much the bits i use would cost on their own.

i think its time the issue was addressed by revolutionanising what the licence fee goes towards and how BBC is funded. i dont see why BBC shouldnt have some advertising, say between programmes, with a reduced licence fee going to the fringe channels (TV and radio) or fringe TV programmes. ITV, C4 even Sky(?!) could also dip into this money for similar non-commercially viable programming. then the fairness of a TV licence funding BBC sort of resolves itself. they'll have to do something because in a generation so many people will be using iplayer as a free alternative that the current arrangment wont work anymore.

Sorry! But I couldn't concentrate on your post as I was completely distracted by your missing 'shift key'!

 

[jimbob5]

I or anyone could have referred you.

Not literally 'anyone'.

 

[jimbob5]

Sorry! But I couldn't concentrate on your post as I was completely distracted by your missing 'shift key'!

Can be his if it's missing?

 

[Notters]

Managed to get some of my US friends and work colleagues converted to watching BBC news (including some who were former Fox News fans) – they’re all impressed with the fact that it’s impartial, doesn’t add a political slant and presents all sides of an argument.

Now, if only I could get them to stop drinking Bud Shite………

Sending a shipment of Harveys your way...