t.v licence

[tamykah]

if i dont want the bbc channels, do i still have to pay for my t.v licence

[ermintrude35]

yes

[beerbelly]

I'm afraid so , Bit of a rip off as I dont bother with BBC crap channels either .

[New Judge]

If you have a TV receiver (or a recording device) which can receive broadcast television programmes (either by conventional terrestrial, cable, satellite or internet) then you are required to hold a TV licence.

The programmes you choose to watch are irrelevant to this requirement.

Fairly recently a test case was brought where the applicant sought to be exempted from this requirement as he had permanently disabled fthe TV receiver he owned from receiving BBC programmes. It was ruled that the licence was required to receive any TV broadcasts, and not solely those from the BBC.

[New Judge]

Not quite right, In a Pickle..

In the test case I mentioned the defendant had specifically disabled his TV from receiving BBC programmes. His argument was that the licence fee is almost entirely used to fund the BBC, which he could not watch.

It was ruled that the law requiring a TV licence to be held said nothing about the BBC (or indeed any other broadcaster) and merely stated that in order to receive TV broadcasts from any source, a licence is needed.

More recently test cases have been brought seeking to be exempt from a licence requirement if programmes are only watched via the internet. This too was thrown out.

The only way you can claim exemption is if your TV (or recorder) can receive no broadcast programmes from any source by any means, but is only capable only of displaying programmes from tape or disc.

It's a bit like buying and only wanting to read "The Sun" and being forced to pay a contribution towards the production costs of "The Daily Telegraph" (or the other way round, depending on your view of the two newpapers and of the BBC).

[jake-the-peg]

...Other than the fact that the newspapers are both profit making commercial organisations and neither has a public service remit.

So not like that at all really

But the Sun is about as good as the commercial TV stations- I'll give you that!

[Buenchico]

Less than 70% of the TV licence is used to fund BBC TV. Even if you could get away with not buying your TV licence, by not watching BBC TV, you'd presumably have to also do without all the other services which the TV licence funds.

You wouldn't be able to listen to Radio 1, 1Xtra, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4, Radio 5 Live, 5 Live Sports Extra, 6 Music, BBC7, Radio Scotland, Radio Wales, Radio Ulster, BBC London, 41 other local radio stations and the BBC Asian Network.

You also wouldn't be able to access the world's largest website, BBC.co.uk.

Although you might be happy to do without BBC1, BBC2, BBC 3, BBC4, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament and BBCi, your children (or any kids who visit your house) might be less happy about missing out on CBBC and CBeebies.

The BBC also owns 25% of Freeview. Without the solid financial backing provided by the TV licence, Freeview might never have got off the ground.

If large numbers of people didn't pay the TV licence (by claiming that they never accessed any of the services which it provides), the licence would have to be abolished and the the BBC would be funded by advertising. ITV strongly oppose such a move because there's not enough advertising revenue to go round. (It's likely that many ITV services, particulary ITV1 which costs a great deal to run, would have to close). Similarly many services on the Sky platform would also go out of business because of a lack of advertising revenue. So the TV licence effectively subsidises commercial broadcasters by freeing up the advertising revenue which they need to run their services.

Chris

[Ice.Maiden]

And if the people on TV and the fat cats behind it didn't receive such ludicrous sums of money for how they "entertain" us - there'd be a lot more money to go around, as well!