You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Not a "can I get away with" post, just a genuine musing.
We never used to have a TV license (or a TV ) and for about 12 yes we were recieving constant threatening and bordering abusive (if automated) letters from the TV Licensing gang. Anyone who hasn't got a license will have had them. They never actually turned up and spoke to us so we just ignored them.
Now we have kids, we have TV and a license, which is now up for renewal.
Thing is, you only need a license to:
Watch Live TV (do people still do this?)
Watch iPlayer (BBC content) at any time.
Our license as lapsed, but as we watch Netflix and currently a bit of 4OD, we don't actually need a license.
And even if we DID watch live TV, do they still jolly around in a van listening at people's windows and trying to match up a signal? (We don't have an aerial, just the internet apps)
The only thing I can see them doing is checking with the BBC for activity on my iPlayer account?
My understanding is enforcement is contracted out to Capita, who will obviously be taking the public coin and doing as little as they can get away with, (sending threatening letters) and in the unlikely event they turn up at the door, they have no powers anyway and can be told to get stuffed.
Do they still take people to court? Have they ever successfully prosecuted anyone in the last decade? What is the point?
What is the point?
most people who watch tv for entertainment pay. People who don’t watch tv don’t.
A small group of people get their entertainment (apparently) by very vocally refusing to pay, because in their mind the BBC is either a leftist alternative snowflake organisation; or a shill for the right wing establishment. Or sometimes both simultaneously.
Roughly 2000 folk a week are convicted, according to a quick google.
Edit, sources vary, but between 1000 and 2000 a week.
You have it the wrong way round on detection. The vans were an elaborate hoax, never worked well enough for legal proof, though a CRT telly did throw out a little radio signature which made it sound plausible. If you’re watching a stream from an app, there’s a solid digital trail.
No they're not toothless but it is easy to do without a licence without breaking the law.
No they don't faff about with "detector" vans outside your house etc . They just focus on the list of addresses with no TV licence and try to harass or intimidate people into getting one.
Thing is, you only need a license to:
Watch Live TV (do people still do this?)
Watch iPlayer (BBC content) at any time.
I'm sure someone who cares enough about these things to know could correct, but I thought it was not that you need a licence to watch, but you need a licence to own the stuff capable of watching. There must be huge number of us now that very rarely actually consume BBC content in the way that makes the licence makes sense. Another huge number of us consume other elements that you don't need a licence for though, like the website and the radio output and would really miss it if it went or got so rubbish that you didn't bother using it..... The licence needs updating pronto before it gets bolloxed up.
When we moved in here about 13 years ago they visited us in the first couple of months. So it's pretty obviously database driven. The guy asked if we had a TV, and could he see it. I declined to let him in (we had a very young child). He went away.
Someone came back a few weeks later. This time I showed him the TV through a window, which didn't have anything plugged into it so couldn't be used. He went away. The letters stopped.
A year goes past and they came back. SWMBO was interviewed "under caution" on the doorstep about the possibility of using a TV without a licence. Shortly after we got a new TV and licence.
It's all scare tactics and database.
We had friends who lived in a gated apartment block for a few years who never bothered with a licence and never got a visit as noone could get in. The letters were cyclical and ramp up every 6 months before starting again.
Roughly 2000 folk a week are convicted, according to a quick google.
Edit, sources vary, but between 1000 and 2000 a week.
They are disproportionately women, how do they get away with this?
Still on monthly threatening letters and they never turned up when they said they would following their "investigation". Why do I need to inform a business every 2 years that I don't wish to purchase their product?
If you watch (or record) live tv, regardless what channel, or if you watch iplayer, you need a licence.
but if you don’t do those things, then you don’t.
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.
i’d wager that almost all of the people convicted were caught because they admitted it.
the whole licence idea is monumentally flawed, it would be far fairer to move all bbc content to a subscription service.
fwiw, i have a licence, even though I haven’t watched live tv this year iirc, although i do occasionally record stuff.
The government are trying to demonise the BBC and as such I believe a lot of people are choosing not to pay their TV licence, this is so they can say it is not working and can sell it to one of their tory mates who will use the independent reporting status of the BBC to push tory agendas, so do not pay at your own peril
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.
You can stop the letters if you fill out a declaration, we did one a few years back and have heard nothing since.
You can piss and moan about the fact you shouldn't have to but if you want an easy life then it's all of a few minutes work.
I’m sure someone who cares enough about these things to know could correct, but I thought it was not that you need a licence to watch, but you need a licence to own the stuff capable of watching.
Wrong way round.
Perfectly legal to own a TV and aerial/satellite dish/cable box/streaming box with no licence so long as you don't watch live TV or IPlayer.
Go listen to commercial radio for 8 hours / 5days a week somewhere. Those annoying jingles will sit in your head for the rest of your life, perhaps taking the space of a little nugget of information that would have changed your life if only you'd remembered it.
"Buy a bike"
"BUY A BIKE"
"Get down to Charnock Richard.Cycles."
That jingle will be the very last neuro response I have before the world fades to darkness and I die. A Tv/radio licence could help you avoid a similar fate.
I fill in the "I don't need a TV license" form on the website and they leave me alone, no letters or visits.
The prosecutions always used to rely heavily on the 'inspectors' obtaining admissions from hapless residents who didn't realise they had no powers and you could just tell them to piss off. The disproportionate number of women affected because they tended to be the people at home when they visited. Might be different in the iPlayer age
There’s no easy answer to ‘should the BBC be funded by a license’. It is a regressive charge. And yet even at its current price it’s fairly good value for the radio I listen to. And somewhat for the limited amount of iPlayer I watch.
Detector vans were obvious BS even back in the day. Looking at it through a modern lens there is something of a scare scam going on with ‘we will find you’. Well, yeah, of course with an address in the U.K. and the likelihood of watching and listening to BBC network products that’s fairly high.
In the scheme of things BBC stuff is fairly good value. Even with the current run of the Archers.
As folks have said, there is a lot of politicking going on.
Before 2016 I would have been on the side of ‘pay for the license as it supports generally good work’. Since then 🤷🏻♂️. If the BBC disappeared tomorrow I’m not sure I’d be in despair. Journalism - weak. Novelty - weak. Tradition - strong. Establishment BS - a core value.
Perhaps it is more of a protection racket these days? Pay up or Crapita will hassle you.
Crapita are a surprisingly 💩 company.
do they still jolly around in a van listening at people’s windows
They never did.
I thought it was not that you need a licence to watch, but you need a licence to own the stuff capable of watching.
You thought wrong. The OP is correct.
You need a licence to watch TV (on any channel) as broadcast; recordings you've made of said broadcast TV; or iPlayer. That's it.
I used to hear tales of people driving a screw into the RF to demonstrate that they couldn't use it as a TV when the 'detector' van came a knocking. It's a nonsense, you don't need to prove anything. They have no powers, no magic rayguns and no rights to enter your property and inspect anything. The convictions are likely for people who have been stupid enough to admit it, or who are watching Strictly on a TV next to the window.
I think the BBC is good value for money (generally, if not for me personally) and I think it's worth supporting. But the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of enforcement pisses me right off. As above, you can tell them you don't need a licence, but if I didn't have one then I don't see why I should have to be notifying anyone about something I'm not doing and I'm inclined to let them waste their time and money on red ink and jobsworths instead just out of spite. I don't get angry letters from shotgun licensing demanding to know whether I use a gun or not. This way madness lies.
If you're not doing the things you need a licence for, ignore them. If they turn up on your doorstep asking if they can come in, say no. If they send you prepaid envelopes, pop them back in the post empty. Every little helps.
I've had several very aggressive TV licence inspectors.
One tried to force his way in, was blocked, and had the door closed in his face. He then proceeded to bang on the windows hard enough that I was worried he would break them. Only left when I started to dial for the police, shouting all the while that I was breaking the law[0] and that he was going to get me.
I complained to the BBC, who just said they outsourced enforcement, and ignored me. I get that it might have been a rogue agent, but I expect the organisation that ultimately employs them to actually care.
So yeah, I'll be damned if I'm ever giving them money.
[0] I obviously was not.
I think if that happened to me I'd have locked the door behind him and called 999 to report an intruder in my house demanding to know where my valuable consumer electronics are.
But I'm quite the fan of "fight bastard with bastard."
As above, you can tell them you don’t need a licence, but if I didn’t have one then I don’t see why I should have to be notifying anyone about something I’m not doing and I’m inclined to let them waste their time and money on red ink and jobsworths instead just out of spite.
See I don't get that. Picking up letters and posting them back etc. is going to take up more of your time overall than filling out the declaration. It also stops people with less backbone panicking over threatening letters and buying a licence they don't need. Why make life difficult for yourself?
They are disproportionately women, how do they get away with this?
they do love a poverty stricken single mother to use an an example
We don't have a TV license. We get a threatening letter every six weeks from them, have done for years....
Someone did hand deliver one once, but didn't even knock on the door.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51881194996_78e6440b86.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51881194996_78e6440b86.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2n3yFL1 ]TV Licence nonsense Feb 2022[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
Every couple of months, for the last 10 years, they've scheduled a visit (apparently) 😉
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52460913540_8cd964746a.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52460913540_8cd964746a.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2nVMTTj ]TV Licence nonsense Oct 2022[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
Im not shirking, it, we just genuinley dont watch iplayer, and dont have an aerial for live stuff. and having been on the reiceving end of their abusive letters, i do feel like its worth the little bit of extra effort wasting their money on red ink and jobsworths.
My point i guess is that the wording is so wooly, i dont see how it holds up in the slightest.
You have to have a License to Watch it.
What about if i have it on really loud while im cooking dinner in the next room, and only ever listen to it?
I reckon ill fill in the "i dont need a license" form, and logout of my iPlayer account on the TV itself.
See I don’t get that. Picking up letters and posting them back etc. is going to take up more of your time overall than filling out the declaration. It also stops people with less backbone panicking over threatening letters and buying a licence they don’t need. Why make life difficult for yourself?
*shakes head*. Why does a private company behave in this manner? Why should I be required to inform them that I don't want to purchase their service? What a business model, has anyone else copied it?!
"people with less backbone", really? You know what, I'd be very interested to know how TVL managed to arrive at such a high number of women being convicted. Were they being targeted? After all, Capita have their mucky fingers in many pies so are they able to access other databases such as benefit payments, council tax etc.
It's morally reprehensible if they're going after those who aren't aware of the rules or are vulnerable and proceed to spout lies in order to ensure they receive their commission. Nobody should be afraid of opening their front door, nobody should feel obliged to allow a TVL goon into their home to show that their aerial is not plugged in/demonstrate that they don't watch live telly.
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 ! We don't watch much live TV, but it doesn't instantly stream when I switch it on ! Usually watch the news though.
What about if i have it on really loud while im cooking dinner in the next room, and only ever listen to it?
Blind people get a reduction, not an exemption.
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 !
We haven't had a TV for decades....
Just watch Netflix / Amazon Prime / Apple TV.
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 ! We don’t watch much live TV, but it doesn’t instantly stream when I switch it on ! Usually watch the news though.
I do not watch 'normal' tv and I am not a liar. Aerial is not connected cos I only stream via Google Chromecast.
I was gonna come across all righteous and why is it so difficult to pay for a service if you do use it... then realised I had streamed Sky Box Office from a free website the other evening 😂
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 ! We don’t watch much live TV, but it doesn’t instantly stream when I switch it on ! Usually watch the news though
Only ever watch netflix/prime and DVDs, plus grand designs on C4 catchup service.
Dont think the TV can even get BBC etc - have never tried, but it would have to be by installing/logging into an app, as there is no dish or aerial connected or installed on the house.
I also don't listen to the radio at all (very, very occasionally in the car, but a local station). I use audio books / music streaming apps instead.
News is provided via websites such as Guardian, Telegraph etc.(I like to get a mix of left and right wing views!)
Not sure why you find this so hard to believe. I think I last watched BBC about 20 or so years ago.
I don't have a TV.
My mother doesn't have a TV.
She gets the letters and gets all frothy and up in arms over the whole thing, ranting away...
I 100% get the sentiment, but then I just go to their website and tell them I don't have a TV. Problem solved, no more aggro 🤷♂️
That is until the notification runs out after a year or two and I get the letters again "GO TO JAIL GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL WE ARE COMING TO YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW GET A LICENCE OR ELSE DEATH PENALTY" etc etc 🙄. Sometimes I wish I had the energy to get worked up about it, but hey I have a more peaceful life like this 🙂
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 ! We don’t watch much live TV, but it doesn’t instantly stream when I switch it on ! Usually watch the news though.
Yes actually. We don't have an aerial . The TV is plugged into a device that only works online. We only really use Netflix and YouTube. There are apps available for watching live TV but we don't have any. Never watch the news, I'm miserable enough.
We do have a licence though. I might not renew it as we definitely don't need it.
@fossy - yep I don’t watch live tv. The closest I get is to watching GCN racing full race later in the evening.
I very rarely watch any Netflix or Prime content never mind watching a full series. Occasionally one of my friends will say there’s a great series on BBC or ITV, but I’ve never been interested enough to watch it.
My news content is pretty much all in digital print rather than TV. I don’t pay my licence because I don’t want to consume the service they offer and I don’t like their operating model.
What does annoy with the BBC licence is personally the only thing I would want to watch live is The Rugby World Cup, but ITV won the rights to it. So I’d have to pay my licence fee to watch TV that BBC are not showing. I know thats a personal view as millions won’t want to watch the RWC, but thats my own reflection.
(I have no aerial, no sky dish, no streaming sky box thing, no IPlayer or other live channel app on my firestick)
A small group of people get their entertainment (apparently) by very vocally refusing to pay, because in their mind the BBC is either a leftist alternative snowflake organisation; or a shill for the right wing establishment. Or sometimes both simultaneously.
Parasites.
A small group of people get their entertainment (apparently) by very vocally refusing to pay, because in their mind the BBC is either a leftist alternative snowflake organisation; or a shill for the right wing establishment. Or sometimes both simultaneously.
A larger group just think it's a bit 'meh' and don't watch it...
desperatebicycle
Free Member
I was gonna come across all righteous and why is it so difficult to pay for a service if you do use it…
lolz
Why do I need to inform a business every 2 years that I don’t wish to purchase their product?
It's not a product. It's a tax. Stop being disingenuous.
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.
Cobblers.
So, all of you that don’t have a license never watch ‘normal TV’ – like the news etc, everything is streamed ?
Nope, there's nothing there I want.
I'd pay the fee for 6 music alone.
Advert free radio saves my sanity (just).
I do use iplayer occasionally and probably watch something on live TV very very occasionally (6 nations previous BBC, now just the dire ITV coverage).
I find a curious disconnect between the normally left leaning sentiments of this forum and the "down with the bbc, I will pay for services that I choose" attitudes on this thread.
Successive tory governments have cut funding of the BBC so we're left with the relatively disappointing service we now have, or the choice to pay for services we use when we want them. If we want it to be a good, usable service again then it will need a bit of an overhaul to get rid of some corporate flab, then be supported by better central funding.
Now change "BBC" to "NHS" in that paragraph and the responses would be totally different.
One tried to force his way in, was blocked, and had the door closed in his face. He then proceeded to bang on the windows hard enough that I was worried he would break them. Only left when I started to dial for the police, shouting all the while that I was breaking the law[0] and that he was going to get me.
WTF? That's crazy. I wonder how often they do this and lie about their illegal entry while prosecuting.
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.
Cobblers.
"Well, M'lud, I was just playing my 'Best of Simon May TV Themes' LP at full blast* when this gentleman knocked on the door. I don't believe I need a licence for that?"
Depends what their evidence threshold for prosecution is, really. I'm guess that actually seeing a TV showing live telly is probably what they're looking for, if you're not going to admit it.
*Howard's Way is an absolute banger.
I find a curious disconnect between the normally left leaning sentiments of this forum and the “down with the bbc, I will pay for services that I choose” attitudes on this thread.
I think you have to draw a distinction between non-payers and people who are affronted by the enforcement tactics they use.
Now change “BBC” to “NHS” in that paragraph and the responses would be totally different.
True, there is basically no difference between being denied cancer surgery and being denied 'Cash in the Attic'.
I find a curious disconnect between the normally left leaning sentiments of this forum and the “down with the bbc, I will pay for services that I choose” attitudes on this thread.
Not really.
I don't watch Disney, so I don't pay for it. I don't watch the BBC, so I don't pay for that either....
True, there is basically no difference between being denied cancer surgery and being denied ‘Cash in the Attic’.
Well one is prolonged and extremely unpleasant - the other is a serious illness. 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.
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)