T.V Licence....

[soobet]

Can anyone tell me how long the British public have been paying the BBC TV licence? Also do other countries have the same sort of thing?
I don't think we should be dictated to in this way. Do you?

[tonymclark]

Not sure of the exact date. The TV licence grew out of the radio licence. Once TV became big, the radio fee didn't cover the costs of TV programmes.

The TV licence was around before the introduction of ITV in 1955.

I like paying the licence fee, as I find adverts so intrucive. Anyway, you pay for ITV programmes if you buy any of the products that are advertised. The manufactures have to find the money for advertising by pushing up the price of their products.

[milly143]

It works out to be about 50p a day. Surely that's not too much to ask. It does cost money to make these programs. I don't object to paying at all.

[IndieSinger]

I don't object to paying either. I like the fact that there will be some diversity and quality on the BBC and its 8 (?) channels and I love the fact there is no consumer advertising. I think it's well worth it for a bit of quality. Imagine if every channel were as ITV1, ITV2, Channel 4 etc.! 

[myron21]

At least you get a service thats worth paying for.  I live in Ireland and we pay the same amount as you, the only difference being the pathetic god awful standard of our programs, its infuriating being forced to pay for something so pathetic.  Thank God we can get the BBC on cable, easily the best broadcaster in the world.

[Chillum]

I'd probably subscribe to the BBC, but I'd like to have the choice.

[soobet]

Exactly...... Its the fact that we dont have the choice.

[milly143]

Yeah but you can't expect to get things for nothing. The beeb provide the best TV listings and as tonymclark says, its nice not to have all those annoying ads. You could always chose not to have a TV

[netibiza]

We don't have to pay for them in Spain - but then again the TV's rubbish!!!

[heatherglen]

Where I live I can only get BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. What about a reduction!

[flaming]

This is one of my 'hobby horses':  I think all licence-payers should be able to receive the BBCTV outut, but as I can't |I have been trying to find out if it is legal under its Public Service Charter to transmit programmes which they know all thier viewers cannot receive.  I am unable to receive a strong enough signal on a set-top box.  We have a communal satellite dish on the roof of my flat block.  We are not allowed individual dishes.  I don't want to pay either the hook-up charge or the monthly rental fee, chargeable lower than it would be if I had a Sky package, which I don't want.   What I do want are the new BBCTV channels.  I see  it that the BBC are withholding some programmes from me, and others who live in low signal areas. Sub-thread: What do other ABers think please? Or maybe I should ask a new question?

[flaming]

Apologies for all the typing errors. I must log-off and go to bed.

[IndieSinger]

Don't forget that the cost of the television license is for any device capable of picking up and/or recording a broadcasting signal, not just BBC channels.

[milly143]

You don't pay extra on your TV licence for having free view so why should you receive a discount for not having it. Even if it is not currently available where you are. If you like and want to have a TV in our house then you shouldn't mind paying a little bit for it. It's not about being dictated, its about the broadcasters having the funds to provide quality programing.

[amarillis]

I was amazed that I had to pay a TV licence here - licence fees were discontinued in Australia (where I'm from) in 1974 on the basis that it was an unfair and regressive tax. The ABC (equivelant to BBC) is now run on government grants.

[galltin]

And the Government get the grants from the .............?

[flaming]

It is only the Beeb who get the money though.  I am not expecting a discount but what I should like is a repeat, say late at night, of the programmes shown on BBC3 and 4.  Our licence money pays for the production of programmes thus we should all be able to see them even if transmission is delayed somewhat. It is particularly annoying to watch through a programme and find that 'normal' viewers have to wait for the continuation next week, whereas viewers who can receive the new channels can watch the continuation immediately by switching to, say, BBC3.  I think that's unfair, that's all.   A set-top box is no good here - I've had an engineer round with a sample box to check that the signal is too weak.  The hook-up to the communal aerial is over �100, and that would be ok, but there's a for always monthly rental of aerial charge for maintenance. I certainly appreciate a licenced 'no adverts' service, which I think is good value, but just this one point rankles.

[soobet]

The point of the matter is we do not have a choice. It is simply that that annoys me to death. I pay my cable company for the TV channels I want to watch. Why should I have to then pay for a TV licence simply for the BBC channels which I am already getting and pay for? Would all you people out there not have a problem if the government said �OK everyone spend as much as you like on a washing machine but you have to pay us �? Incase you use a certain washing detergent  ????�. No, no one would like that at all. I can�t believe that anyone with an ounce of common sense can�t see that we should be given the choice. The �FREE VIEW� is a total joke, where do they get the idea that it is FREE�. I don�t think so! Did you not buy a digibox, do you not pay for a licence�.come on people stand up for your rights�.
Oh and while I am on here the BBC programmes are no better / worse than other stations. Independent channels have, yes, some annoying adverts, however sometimes a break is just what is needed if you know what I mean��.

[spammylou]

In Malta they have a TV licence. Makes sense as they were once under British Rule... I strongly object to the TV licence, as does James Whale, (Talk Sport Mon-Friday 10pm-1am)  its no more than a poll tax.

[flaming]

No, one thing rankling is not true.  It's two things.  I read quite a few of the media gossip snippets, and it is incensing to know about the fantastic perks the higher echelons of the Beeb enjoy, apart from rather tasty salaries.  There's such an heirarchy! The Governors don't do the above-higher echelon tier for pennies, either.  More could be spent on programmes if this particular gravy train was derailed!

[Toxic Guts]

I have recently found some strong ammunition in favour of paying the TV licence. Up until recently i thought that the licencing scheme was unfair, especially since most programmes on TV nowadays are not worth watching at all, and most are repeats, surely they have been paid for already (in some cases several times over!)?

But my mind has been changed now forever in favour of the TV licence. Why? Because of those damned CRAZY FROG ADVERTS!!!!!!!!!! If paying for a licence means that we don't have to be subjected to this torture twice every ad break (thats 6 times during a one hour program), then the sooner ITV and Channel 4 introduce licencing the better!!!

This tripe must be stopped. I have taken to changing channels or even turning off the TV altogether now when these irritating repetetive adverts come on. Surely there must be something we can do to save people from having to endure this pap ?!?!?!