TV Licence

[Guest]

Surely satellite tv is not live tv .compare digital tv with sat tv and there is a time delay.

I have watched tv in the kitchen and seen the same on entering the lounge.

I go along with the thought that the BBC should fund itself and that a licence is a stealth tax.

You will also find that watching TV as it is broadcast over the internet can often be subject to an even greater time delay than satellite TV, however that is not a 'get out clause' either.

 

The likes of iPlayer normally only allow access to a program when it has completely finished broadcasting hence as Kevin points out this means you do not need a licence to watch it.

Edited August 5, 2014 by The Dog House

[nicknorman]

Surely satellite tv is not live tv .compare digital tv with sat tv and there is a time delay.

I have watched tv in the kitchen and seen the same on entering the lounge.

 

I go along with the thought that the BBC should fund itself and that a licence is a stealth tax.

So how should the BBC fund itself? The only way is by hours of advertising such as you get on ITV and in particular on sky, plus selling their programmes overseas (which they already do). Personally I am quite happy to pay the licence fee to get the quality of programmes we get and the absence of advertising (although the BBC's own advertising for its forthcoming programmes is getting to be a pain!).

 

The licence fee is not a stealth tax, it is a payment to receive a service like any other. As I said, there is a bit of a point about the need for a licence to watch commercial channels even if you never watch BBC, but of course the reality is that this would be impossible to police and it is hard to believe that folk would never ever watch BBC even if they had the TV and knew a fantastic programme that everyone was talking about, was only a click of the remote away. Especially considering the degree of dishonesty being displayed on this thread, which I suspect is not untypical of our society in general.

[FadeToScarlet]

So how should the BBC fund itself? The only way is by hours of advertising such as you get on ITV and in particular on sky, plus selling their programmes overseas (which they already do). Personally I am quite happy to pay the licence fee to get the quality of programmes we get and the absence of advertising (although the BBC's own advertising for its forthcoming programmes is getting to be a pain!).The licence fee is not a stealth tax, it is a payment to receive a service like any other. As I said, there is a bit of a point about the need for a licence to watch commercial channels even if you never watch BBC, but of course the reality is that this would be impossible to police and it is hard to believe that folk would never ever watch BBC even if they had the TV and knew a fantastic programme that everyone was talking about, was only a click of the remote away. Especially considering the degree of dishonesty being displayed on this thread, which I suspect is not untypical of our society in general.

To be fair, it's not exactly easy to pay a TV licence if you don't have an address. If you could simply post them a cheque once a year and they issued a licence to "Narrowboat Whatever", then I suspect that more would pay. But having to actively pursue them to pay them money at they're entitled to, doesn't exactly make the prospect of paying an exciting one. If I wanted a TV, I have much better things to do with my time than sending them innumerable emails and spending a lot of time on the phone trying to pay.

[Guest]

To be fair, it's not exactly easy to pay a TV licence if you don't have an address. If you could simply post them a cheque once a year and they issued a licence to "Narrowboat Whatever", then I suspect that more would pay. But having to actively pursue them to pay them money at they're entitled to, doesn't exactly make the prospect of paying an exciting one. If I wanted a TV, I have much better things to do with my time than sending them innumerable emails and spending a lot of time on the phone trying to pay.

If you read the thread I linked to earlier you can see how easy it actually is, or at least was when Carl did it.

[Delta9]

It's the way they try to collect the fee that annoys me. It's like ASDA sending out letters to everyone accusing them of stealing the bottle of wine and demanding that you pay for it. Even if you haven't taken a bottle of wine they will keep threatening you with legal action until you let one of their inspectors into your house to see if you have any wine.

 

My dad doesn't watch live TV and doesn't need a license, but ended up buying one after getting a ton of threatening letters because he was worried. They bullied him into buying something he didn't need or want.

So how should the BBC fund itself?

Subscription. People who want it can pay for it. No need to force it on others.

[nicknorman]

It's the way they try to collect the fee that annoys me. It's like ASDA sending out letters to everyone accusing them of stealing the bottle of wine and demanding that you pay for it. Even if you haven't taken a bottle of wine they will keep threatening you with legal action until you let one of their inspectors into your house to see if you have any wine.

 

My dad doesn't watch live TV and doesn't need a license, but ended up buying one after getting a ton of threatening letters because he was worried. They bullied him into buying something he didn't need or want.

Yes I can agree with that point. I bought a new build flat to rent out with my pension pot, took "delivery" of it in February but there was already a letter from TV licencing through the door dated a couple of months before the flat had even been completed and received its occupancy certification from the council! I pointed out that a) the flat had not been completed at the date they claimed the licence should start and b/ it was empty, pending furnishing and letting out. I heard no more about it. The tone of the correspondence is certainly in the arena of "threatening".

Edited August 5, 2014 by nicknorman

[bastion]

I cancelled my licence last June as I no longer watch tv of any sort, it took until May of this year to convince the authorities that I did not need a licence. I received letters telling me that I was watching tv illegally and eventually was asked to make my premises available for inspection from 6th May from dawn to dusk. I called through and was told that I could not make a appointment for said inspection and it could be anytime in the next 4 weeks!! When I said that I would seek legal advice over continual harassment they relented and marked my file for further inspection in 2 yrs time.

[nicknorman]

To be fair, it's not exactly easy to pay a TV licence if you don't have an address. If you could simply post them a cheque once a year and they issued a licence to "Narrowboat Whatever", then I suspect that more would pay. But having to actively pursue them to pay them money at they're entitled to, doesn't exactly make the prospect of paying an exciting one. If I wanted a TV, I have much better things to do with my time than sending them innumerable emails and spending a lot of time on the phone trying to pay.

That may be true (I have no personal experience of it) and is of course the same argument used by people to avoid paying the council tax that would be used to fund the services they use. Although there seems to be some dispute about how hard it actually is. But my point is not about how hard or easy it is, or should be, to pay, it is about the question of whether one should feel obliged to pay for services used, or whether one should sit back and scrounge whilst others have to pay your share just because you can get away with it.

Edited August 5, 2014 by nicknorman

[Delta9]

I cancelled my licence last June as I no longer watch tv of any sort, it took until May of this year to convince the authorities that I did not need a licence. I received letters telling me that I was watching tv illegally and eventually was asked to make my premises available for inspection from 6th May from dawn to dusk. I called through and was told that I could not make a appointment for said inspection and it could be anytime in the next 4 weeks!! When I said that I would seek legal advice over continual harassment they relented and marked my file for further inspection in 2 yrs time.

Worth noting that you are not required to let their "officers" into your house, you are quite within your rights to tell them to bugger off. If they are being persistent start filming them. They are trained to leave straight away if they are on film.

[Ricco1]

It was generally agreed that poll tax was an unfair, regressive tax, as someone with a fiver a week to spend on themselves had to pay the same as a millionaire. It matters not a jot that the licence fee isn't a tax, because it behaves exactly like a tax. That is, everyone is expected to pay it, whether they use the service (BBC not live television) or not. And the fact that this is supported by government legislation.

 

So the fact of the matter is that the BBC licence is a regressive and therefore unfair, tax.

 

It's already been suggested that the service should be paid for by subscription. Who could possibly argue with that? Well perhaps someone who believes that it would be too expensive this way, a person who expects others, who think the BBC is a pile of politically motivated crap, should pay, to keep their own bills down. Not stealing the wallet itself, but taking a few notes, so they have to spend less themselves. .

[Guest]

It was generally agreed that poll tax was an unfair, regressive tax, as someone with a fiver a week to spend on themselves had to pay the same as a millionaire. It matters not a jot that the licence fee isn't a tax, because it behaves exactly like a tax. That is, everyone is expected to pay it, whether they use the service (BBC not live television) or not. And the fact that this is supported by government legislation.

 

So the fact of the matter is that the BBC licence is a regressive and therefore unfair, tax.

 

It's already been suggested that the service should be paid for by subscription. Who could possibly argue with that? Well perhaps someone who believes that it would be too expensive this way, a person who expects others, who think the BBC is a pile of politically motivated crap, should pay, to keep their own bills down. Not stealing the wallet itself, but taking a few notes, so they have to spend less themselves. .

I certainly don't expect anybody to pay to keep my bills down, I just expect people to play fair and pay their way under the current system as it stands.

 

I currently never get down to the southern part of the waterways - should I suggest to CRT that I only pay half my licence?

[nicknorman]

It was generally agreed that poll tax was an unfair, regressive tax, as someone with a fiver a week to spend on themselves had to pay the same as a millionaire. It matters not a jot that the licence fee isn't a tax, because it behaves exactly like a tax. That is, everyone is expected to pay it, whether they use the service (BBC not live television) or not. And the fact that this is supported by government legislation.

 

So the fact of the matter is that the BBC licence is a regressive and therefore unfair, tax.

 

It's already been suggested that the service should be paid for by subscription. Who could possibly argue with that? Well perhaps someone who believes that it would be too expensive this way, a person who expects others, who think the BBC is a pile of politically motivated crap, should pay, to keep their own bills down. Not stealing the wallet itself, but taking a few notes, so they have to spend less themselves. .

 

Your logic is flawed because you retain the option not to have a tv. It is hardly a "life essential' and there are plenty of folk who don't have one. The licence fee is therefore not a tax, but a payment for a service which is in essence a luxury.

 

And as to the subscription point, it is already a subscription service. You can either subscribe to having a tv or not, your choice.

Edited August 5, 2014 by nicknorman

[Ricco1]

Your logic is flawed because you retain the option not to have a tv. It is hardly a "life essential' and there are plenty of folk who don't have one. The licence fee is therefore not a tax, but a payment for a service which is in essence a luxury.

 

And as to the subscription point, it is already a subscription service. You can either subscribe to having a tv or not, your choice.

 

I can see we're not going to agree on this but why not make it a subscription service, like Sky? Wouldn't that be fairer so people like yourself who enjoy the service can continue to watch whereas others, who don't enjoy it, can watch other channels, paid for or not, without having to subsidise BBC watchers?

[Graham Davis]

The revenue from the TV licence does not just go to the BBC, it also pays for all the transmission masts that broadcast all the other, non-BBC stations and all the radio stations.

But then those that encourage the illegality seem to forget that!!

[paulstoke1975]

i take the risk and if the detector van does manage to get down the tow path deny you have a tv,

if he asks why you have an aerial, tell them it a washing line for socks,

[nicknorman]

i take the risk and if the detector van does manage to get down the tow path deny you have a tv,

if he asks why you have an aerial, tell them it a washing line for socks,

So could you explain to me why I have to subsidise your TV watching? Presumably you engage in any old criminal activity that you think you can get away with. Do you steal from other boaters too? After all, dead of night, easy pickings!

[carlt]

To be fair, it's not exactly easy to pay a TV licence if you don't have an address. If you could simply post them a cheque once a year and they issued a licence to "Narrowboat Whatever", then I suspect that more would pay. But having to actively pursue them to pay them money at they're entitled to, doesn't exactly make the prospect of paying an exciting one. If I wanted a TV, I have much better things to do with my time than sending them innumerable emails and spending a lot of time on the phone trying to pay.

I buy my licence online, pay by direct debit and my licence arrives as a PDF in my email inbox.

 

Not exactly difficult and even before the days of the interweb my licence was delivered to my c/o address without any fuss whatsoever after I posted my cheque to them, once a year.

[Graham Davis]

i take the risk and if the detector van does manage to get down the tow path deny you have a tv,

if he asks why you have an aerial, tell them it a washing line for socks,

 

The detectors are now hand held, so they don't need a van!

 

I hope you get caught as because of you my licence costs me more than it should.

[paulstoke1975]

just to clarify things,

 

my post was meant to say i'd take the risk not "i take the risk"

 

i do have a tv licence , god knows why though because there nothing worth watching, and the radio is not much better either, complete waste of money

[muddywaters]

Stay legal - only watch catchup - it's that simple

I did hear this and was about to ask on rhis thread then saw this post.

Is it right that if you watch catch up T V as long as you are not watching as the programme is being broadcast, you don't need a licence

[nicknorman]

I did hear this and was about to ask on rhis thread then saw this post.

Is it right that if you watch catch up T V as long as you are not watching as the programme is being broadcast, you don't need a licence

Nearly. You don't need a licence to watch iPlayer etc. You need a licence to RECEIVE live TV (not quite the same as WATCH live tv). So it is no good setting your box to record programmes and then watching them later, because you are still receiving live tv to record it.

[narrowboatham]

It's the way they try to collect the fee that annoys me. It's like ASDA sending out letters to everyone accusing them of stealing the bottle of wine and demanding that you pay for it. Even if you haven't taken a bottle of wine they will keep threatening you with legal action until you let one of their inspectors into your house to see if you have any wine.

 

My dad doesn't watch live TV and doesn't need a license, but ended up buying one after getting a ton of threatening letters because he was worried. They bullied him into buying something he didn't need or want.

Subscription. People who want it can pay for it. No need to force it on others.

i agree with Delta9, the way they treat people is wrong. when i phoned them after my threatening letter and explained i was renovating the property i was basically given the option of being left alone for 3 or 6 months!. I chose 6 but then i'm sure it will all start again.

 

If these detectors (hand held or vans) existed why do we have to be guilty until we prove otherwise?

[Julie Hampton]

Should my license be half price i only get a signal in built now and then

[FadeToScarlet]

I'm fairly sure detector vans are a myth, especially now that fewer TVs use CRT technology.

 

I guess they have a list of all the addresses in the UK, and a list of who has bought a licence, and just send harassing threatening letters to everyone who isn't on both lists.

 

I had 7 letters in a row when living in student accommodation. Replies saying "I've not got a TV" went unheeded.

[Jerra]

I must have a simple mind but it appears tome that a TV license is a license to operate a certain type of equipment. Just like a driving license or I think certain types of radio equipment.

 

I have never heard anyone say I don't use a motor bike so my car license should be cheaper or I have a (insert what ever type of radio needs a license these days) but I don't buy a license as there are no detector vans. Why should TV be any different?