News1 min ago
Is He Mad?
Nobody surely would volunteer to pay their TV licence ?
Would they?
https:/
Would they?
https:/
Answers
When Gary Lineker was a young upcoming footballer, he was a very nice man and a great player for England. Somewhere along the way, about the time he ditched his wife and four children, he lost his way and now TTT's description suits him perfectly. I wouldn't pay a TV license voluntarily, especially with the BBC paying him a fortune.
12:28 Wed 29th Jan 2020
YMB,
I agree that the Licence fee is very unfair for many viewers who do not access BBC Services.
We should abolish the fee and fund from Income Tax.
+ have a fee paying subscription service for on-demand content, that is not compulsory to buy
+ have advertising to supplement the tax and subscription revenue.
I agree that the Licence fee is very unfair for many viewers who do not access BBC Services.
We should abolish the fee and fund from Income Tax.
+ have a fee paying subscription service for on-demand content, that is not compulsory to buy
+ have advertising to supplement the tax and subscription revenue.
Togo
// You cannot watch any BBC programme on a streaming service or iplayer whether a live broadcast or a decades old recording. //
Correct*. As I stated previously.
* UKTV (which operates the TV Channels, Dave Drama and Yesterday) has an on-demand service which is full of old BBC programmes such as Red Dwarf, Classic EastEnders, Holby City and many more, and they can be legally streamed and watched by me, without a licence.
// You cannot watch any BBC programme on a streaming service or iplayer whether a live broadcast or a decades old recording. //
Correct*. As I stated previously.
* UKTV (which operates the TV Channels, Dave Drama and Yesterday) has an on-demand service which is full of old BBC programmes such as Red Dwarf, Classic EastEnders, Holby City and many more, and they can be legally streamed and watched by me, without a licence.
As I said before, it’s the address that gets chased for licence payment, not the person.
If you happen to hold a tv licence but change address you have to amend your licence to refer to the new address, even if only temporarily.
This seems like a crazy waste of resources.
The system we have is anachronistic but the fact remains that it’s a pretty cheap service for what it is.
One great advantage of subsuming the fee into tax would be that it would hopefully make it a lot harder for a government to use moral blackmail on the BBC as this one is doing with the over 75 licences
If you happen to hold a tv licence but change address you have to amend your licence to refer to the new address, even if only temporarily.
This seems like a crazy waste of resources.
The system we have is anachronistic but the fact remains that it’s a pretty cheap service for what it is.
One great advantage of subsuming the fee into tax would be that it would hopefully make it a lot harder for a government to use moral blackmail on the BBC as this one is doing with the over 75 licences
Tora,
I do own a TV and I did get hassle from them at first.
I had reminders which told me to go on-line and fill in the exemption page.
This is usually followed up by a phone call (or 3) in which they accuse me of being a liar. The poor people making the call either do not understand the rules (or are being told to be deliberately untrue). Anyway, I watch legally so I have nothing to worry about.
I had a call at my house, when I had my TV on, but I was watching a Movie I had purchase and was watching via iTunes on a stream. I showed the man that there was no aerial connected. He told me they would not visit again for at least 24 months, but that was about 4 years ago. No hassle since.
For about 3 years in the 90s I did not own a TV. I got similar hassle then, which is partly why I am a bit (lot) pleased, not to pay them now. I am very selective about what I watch.
I do own a TV and I did get hassle from them at first.
I had reminders which told me to go on-line and fill in the exemption page.
This is usually followed up by a phone call (or 3) in which they accuse me of being a liar. The poor people making the call either do not understand the rules (or are being told to be deliberately untrue). Anyway, I watch legally so I have nothing to worry about.
I had a call at my house, when I had my TV on, but I was watching a Movie I had purchase and was watching via iTunes on a stream. I showed the man that there was no aerial connected. He told me they would not visit again for at least 24 months, but that was about 4 years ago. No hassle since.
For about 3 years in the 90s I did not own a TV. I got similar hassle then, which is partly why I am a bit (lot) pleased, not to pay them now. I am very selective about what I watch.
gromit but is it not the case that just owning the equipment capable of receiving a signal means you need a licence? I remember a case back in the 80s when vidoes were the thing, this guy had a TV and he claimed that he only ever watched videos and the TV was in fact just a monitor. They found him liable but he simply bought an actual monitor. Perhaps the rules have now changed. I mean there is nothing stopping you watching freeview on DTV right?
Khandro
Last Wednesday I wanted to watch Star Trek: Picard live on CBS All Access. But I waited half an hour and watched a stream.
On Sunday, Manchester United v Tranmere was on BBC1 live, and I had to force myself to go and drink beer just to be legal.
A few things, such as ‘Only Connect’ my friend puts on her Plex, so I can watch.
Last Wednesday I wanted to watch Star Trek: Picard live on CBS All Access. But I waited half an hour and watched a stream.
On Sunday, Manchester United v Tranmere was on BBC1 live, and I had to force myself to go and drink beer just to be legal.
A few things, such as ‘Only Connect’ my friend puts on her Plex, so I can watch.
Tora,
// is it not the case that just owning the equipment capable of receiving a signal means you need a licence? //
No it is not true. There are so many screens used for purposes other than watching TV, that the law was clarified to stipulate LIVE viewing needs a licence.
// Perhaps the rules have now changed. I mean there is nothing stopping you watching freeview on DTV right? //
Wrong, Freeview broadcasts its channels LIVE so you do need a licence.
// is it not the case that just owning the equipment capable of receiving a signal means you need a licence? //
No it is not true. There are so many screens used for purposes other than watching TV, that the law was clarified to stipulate LIVE viewing needs a licence.
// Perhaps the rules have now changed. I mean there is nothing stopping you watching freeview on DTV right? //
Wrong, Freeview broadcasts its channels LIVE so you do need a licence.
//Being a bit pedantic, but it also funds Channel 4 and S4C.//
Being a bit factually correct, no it doesn’t. From a FOI request Channel 4’s funding:
//We can confirm that Channel 4 is a publicly-owned, but commercially-funded public service broadcaster. Channel 4 was launched on 2nd November 1982 with a unique business model, under the Broadcasting Act 1981. We are funded predominantly by advertising and sponsorship, but unlike other broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4 is not shareholder owned. Furthermore, we do not receive any public funding, including any portion of the TV
Licence fee. You can find more information about our funding in our annual report, which is available via our website at
http://
access copies of all previous annual reports via this link.//
In 2007, owing to severe funding difficulties, the channel sought government help and was granted a payment of £14 million over a six-year period. The money was to have come from the television licence fee, and would have been the first time that money from the licence fee had been given to any broadcaster other than the BBC. However, the plan was scrapped and other methods of emergency funding were explored.
Being a bit factually correct, no it doesn’t. From a FOI request Channel 4’s funding:
//We can confirm that Channel 4 is a publicly-owned, but commercially-funded public service broadcaster. Channel 4 was launched on 2nd November 1982 with a unique business model, under the Broadcasting Act 1981. We are funded predominantly by advertising and sponsorship, but unlike other broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4 is not shareholder owned. Furthermore, we do not receive any public funding, including any portion of the TV
Licence fee. You can find more information about our funding in our annual report, which is available via our website at
http://
access copies of all previous annual reports via this link.//
In 2007, owing to severe funding difficulties, the channel sought government help and was granted a payment of £14 million over a six-year period. The money was to have come from the television licence fee, and would have been the first time that money from the licence fee had been given to any broadcaster other than the BBC. However, the plan was scrapped and other methods of emergency funding were explored.
Latest Posts
The Hajj Is Not Without Its Risks.
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
News19 mins ago
