# TV licence requirements



## ColeyS1 (17 Jan 2020)

If I had a tv and deleted all the BBC channels would I still need a licence? I watch netflix and record the odd programme from the tv. I always thought the licence just paid for the BBC channels but after alot of googling it appears I need one which ever channel I watch (ITV etc) Most of the content I watch now is via Netflix. 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## FatmanG (17 Jan 2020)

Yes they closed that loophole a few years ago by saying that you could watch via the iPlayer online. TV license I believe is on the same kind of level as dick Turpin.
Glenn


----------



## MARK.B. (17 Jan 2020)

The short answer is yes if you have a TV then you need a licence.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Jan 2020)

ColeyS1":2l6wdtru said:


> If I had a tv and deleted all the BBC channels would I still need a licence? I watch netflix and record the odd programme from the tv. I always thought the licence just paid for the BBC channels but after alot of googling it appears I need one which ever channel I watch (ITV etc) Most of the content I watch now is via Netflix.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk



Yes, 'fraid so. If you own and use a TV, or download BBC output or BBC iPlayer content onto any device (not just a TV) you need to pay up, or they'll send the boys round. (Bit of a political hot potato currently, with moves being made to change the rules , but as things stand - own and use a telly, pay up or else.)

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one


----------



## ColeyS1 (17 Jan 2020)

But say if all the bbc channels are deleted from the TV?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## ColeyS1 (17 Jan 2020)

Oh I see, I need one just for having the tv. I thought it only paid for bbc programmes because they dont have any adverts in between the films/programmes

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Sheffield Tony (17 Jan 2020)

I'm not sure technically you do. You need a TV licence to watch live TV, live streamed programmes, or iplayer. Netflix isn't any of those.

You do not need a TV license to own a TV, just to operate it as above.

You will, however, be harassed by TV licensing until the end of time. Indeed, even if you don't have a TV at all you will be harrased, as they are incredulous that you might have found something worthwhile to do with your life instead.


----------



## sammy.se (17 Jan 2020)

I haven't had a TV licence for 17 years.
I used to get harassed but nowadays it's much more common.

You need a TV licence if:
A - you watch or record a live TV program as it's being broadcast, from any channel/source.

B - you watch BBC iPlayer TV shows, either live or on-demand

Add long as you don't do those, you don't need a TV tax, I mean licence.

I don't watch live TV or BBC programs. I'm not missing much.


Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## sammy.se (17 Jan 2020)

ColeyS1":2d6j4q8h said:


> Oh I see, I need one just for having the tv. I thought it only paid for bbc programmes because they dont have any adverts in between the films/programmes
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Incorrect. You can own TVs, just don't watch live TV from any source, or watch iPlayer.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## sammy.se (17 Jan 2020)

MARK.B.":i7lzjkxc said:


> The short answer is yes if you have a TV then you need a licence.


That's not true anymore.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## thetyreman (17 Jan 2020)

MARK.B.":h4r9r0qu said:


> The short answer is yes if you have a TV then you need a licence.



not true, you can use it purely as a screen to play games through or watch VHS tapes on without needing a license. It is BBC propaganda.


----------



## thetyreman (17 Jan 2020)

sammy.se":3ls4vvtu said:


> I'm not missing much.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk



you're not wrong :lol:


----------



## Steve Maskery (17 Jan 2020)

I've not had a TV for over 8 years. I don't think that my life is lacking anything as a result. Indeed, when I go over a my friend's house and the telly is on it really annoys me. I don't like it.

You do not need a TV license just because you have a television set in the house.

You DO need a licence if you want to watch the BBC (Live or iPlayer, but not legacy stuff on YouTube), or any other terrestrial channel (ITV, Channel4 etc) live. Catchup for those is still OK, I think, unless they have changed the rules in the last few years.

When the TLM* knock on your door, you are not obliged to let them in. You can, of course, if you wish, but they do not have a legal right of entry. If you want them to go away, the phrase you need is, "I withdraw your Implied Right of Access". The Implied Right of Access is because you have a letterbox, and so the implication is that anyone can come up your drive to deliver something. But it is Implied, it is not a legal right, so you can withdraw that implied right.

That means that they are now trespassing if they come up your garden path. They must not come closer than the pavement outside your gate.

Of course, if you really are watching BBC or anything else live, they you should pay up, but if you don't, don't be bullied by them .
S
*Television Licensing Mafia


----------



## MARK.B. (17 Jan 2020)

OK i stand corrected


----------



## ColeyS1 (17 Jan 2020)

My new years resolution is to not watch tv on weekdays until 9pm. It's much easier than I thought so long as I keep busy. This day in age I'm surprised they can get away with their bully/scare tactics. I'm half tempted to not get one just to see what happens. It's almost £160 a year now ! So just to confirm, I'm paying for the licence so I can watch and record live tv from the bbc/iplayer or live tv from any channel ?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Jan 2020)

I know a chap who not only doesn't have a TV licence, he actively refused to pay, on the grounds that the BBC is in breach of its charter. He rather enthusiastically went through the court proceedings, which went smoothly until he submitted his list of witnesses - most of the BBC board of directors or whatever they call themselves. Case quietly dropped.

My understanding is that if you don't pay, they send you a threatening letter. If you ignore the letter, they send you a scarily threatening letter. If you ignore that, they send you a "we'll send the boys round" letter. And that's it. After a while, they start again with the first one, and around and around you go. Think of the TV licence as a voluntary tax.

In Greece they add it in to your electricity bill, so you can't avoid it. Quite sensible really - if you have an electricity supply, you have the right to watch TV. If you don't want to watch TV, your choice, but you have the right: the government will allow you to. Isn't that nice if them.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Jan 2020)

TV Licensing - 
"You don’t need a TV Licence if you never watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel, or live on an online TV service, and you never download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.
This applies to any provider or device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorder."


You don’t need a TV Licence if you never watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV on any channel ...
Interesting, no mention of BBC in that sentence? That would imply that if you watch anything live at all you need a licence.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Jan 2020)

Legally you don't need one if you don't watch live TV.

That being said, you can quite happily watch live TV without a license but you need to be prepared to stand your ground should they try to do anything. 

The ONLY way you can be prosecuted is if you admit to doing it.


----------



## ColeyS1 (18 Jan 2020)

I found this last night whilst looking 





It says over 90% goes to the bbc. It would be nice to have the option to just pay the 10% and opt out of there channels. Perhaps I'm just being a scrooge. I buy a tv magazine every week and on a Saturday flick through and circle anything of interest. I circled one thing this week which is a film that would probably be...or might be on Netflix anyway.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Jan 2020)

https://www.tvguide.co.uk/

Why buy a mag?


----------



## RogerS (18 Jan 2020)

sammy.se":1txu9nhg said:


> ....
> I'm not missing much.
> ..



OK..each to their own but you're missing some excellent stuff on the BBC. I'd rate content as 7/10 BBC and 1/10 Netflix.

But, as I said, each to their own.


----------



## RogerS (18 Jan 2020)

thetyreman":5q69f4uh said:


> sammy.se":5q69f4uh said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not missing much.
> ...




Oh yes he is


----------



## beech1948 (18 Jan 2020)

About 4 yrs ago I completed a form from TLM in which I declared that I no longer watched BBC/ITV etc and only used non-live TV. Submitting this form gave me 2 yrs of non harassment from TLM. I had to redo this form after 2 yrs and expect that I will need to do my third one in a few months.

No harassment, no house calls, no threatening visits. Fairly civilised but of course its time to cancel the TV tax and right now.


----------



## ColeyS1 (18 Jan 2020)

Thanks for all the replies chaps. I need to think about it but it does seem pointless paying so much for the odd programme or film that is available elsewhere anyway.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## rafezetter (18 Jan 2020)

Considering how much it costs for cable services now, and that the majority of the TV stuff worth watching from the BBC gets sold to other broadcasters anyway to be shown in the future, don't I think that paying for BBC content can really be justified.

They make stuff from TLM money, then sell it worldwide for a profit; sure they have to pay celebrities extortionate amounts of money, but that's on them - THEY made those financial choices not us, and they made them because THEY weren't footing the bill. That article about how much thier top names get paid really woke a lot of people up about the scam that is the BBC Licence - "Graham Norton wants an extra £2 million? NP we'll just send our teams out to intimidate more people". 

Every other broadcaster manages to do it without one, and the adverts aren't even an issue for people who have TV recording systems like Tivo or Sky boxes anyway - you just fast forward.

Sure I like David Attenbourgh's work, and I'll watch it if it's on - via the Eden channel that already costs me £35 per month for that cable package.

If the BBC wants more money I suggest they start going round all the building sites with thier radios going and start harassing them for a "public broadcasting fee", that should be interesting to watch.


----------



## kevinlightfoot (19 Jan 2020)

I am quite happy to pay the licence fee.I listen to radio quite a lot ,watch plenty of television,especially in the winter and consider in the most part that the B.B.C. deliver a good service as for the celebrities pay packets they have always been far too high.Tony Blackburn does three shows a week which are well worth the£3 a week licence fee .I know I could listen to them for free because for many years we haven't needed a licence to just listen to radio,but what would fund the many excellent radio shows( not counting the squeaky little voice of Graham Norton can't stand the man) that the B.B.C. produce I personally think it's a good deal.But the world will always be full of freeloaders.


----------



## RogerS (19 Jan 2020)

rafezetter":x553qoyv said:


> .... and the adverts aren't even an issue for people who have TV recording systems like Tivo or Sky boxes anyway - you just fast forward.
> 
> ..



But they are a PITA. Yes you can fast forward but if you're watching a decent drama then it spoils the dynamic.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (19 Jan 2020)

Just to be clear, although I dislike the antics of the TV licensing people, I have no problem with paying for the BBC. It is the best of the bunch. Although that isn't difficult. Adverts do ruin programmes for me, not just the add but the necessary recap of all that's been said already for the sieve minded. We've tried Amazon and Netflix, and I can well live without either.


----------



## Nigel Burden (19 Jan 2020)

Channel 5 has some good history programmes, and other than watching the news, there's very little I watch. Adverts annoy me, but they are useful if you want to make a drink or have a toilet break.

Nigel.


----------



## welly (19 Jan 2020)

RogerS":q46rg4f1 said:


> sammy.se":q46rg4f1 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Agreed, whatever your politics are and even if they don't align with the BBC (which is supposed to be impartial), they do produce some quality watching. There is some dung but compared with most other channels, far less dung and far more quality viewing.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (20 Jan 2020)

The problem with TV generally is too many channels, so too much output required. Add in the fact that most people seem to want to watch appalling dross, and you are left with a very few worthwhile options. For me, television is what I ignore whilst streaming woodwork videos with the sound off. I get to pretend to be hanging out with the family, and they get to watch whatever they want. We are currently working through the entire Doctor Who series, for the second time. Better than most rubbish, but I have seen them all before (although I may not have been paying attention).

Stream on demand, then you don't have to put up with what someone else believes you should be watching.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Jan 2020)

I remember reading a TV critic back in the early days of satellite TV saying he'd just bitten the bullet and got B Sky B (iirc).
The week before he had five channels with nothing worth watching, now he had another sixteen with nothing worth watching.


----------



## Irish Rover (20 Jan 2020)

MARK.B.":1ul3ryrt said:


> The short answer is yes if you have a TV then you need a licence.



Wrong

If you watch live programmes via your TV, you need a licence.

To watch catch up / non live streaming via Prime / Netflix etc you don't need a licence.


----------



## Rich C (20 Jan 2020)

phil.p":hlp4ohoh said:


> TV Licensing -
> "You don’t need a TV Licence if you never watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel, or live on an online TV service, and you never download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.
> This applies to any provider or device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorder."
> 
> ...


Correct, any live TV from any source means you need a licence.

I've not had a licence for years, I don't watch much TV and what little I do watch is from Netflix or the like.


----------



## RogerS (20 Jan 2020)

Also seems to imply that if you record a programme, say, on ITV and then watch it at a later date then you do need a licence.


----------



## ColeyS1 (20 Jan 2020)

Why is it not necessary to have a radio licence? I do listen to bbc radio all day so suppose I should contribute to that.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## ColeyS1 (20 Jan 2020)

Its almost like theyve made it so confusing so everybody thinks they need one.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Rorschach (20 Jan 2020)

RogerS":2xxa53z4 said:


> Also seems to imply that if you record a programme, say, on ITV and then watch it at a later date then you do need a licence.





Irish Rover":2xxa53z4 said:


> If you record a live broadcast that counts as watching it so you need a license. If you watch a catch up programme then you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mostly true. If you watch BBC catch up you need a license., but not for any others.


----------



## RogerS (20 Jan 2020)

Rorschach":v5a9wqjm said:


> RogerS":v5a9wqjm said:
> 
> 
> > Also seems to imply that if you record a programme, say, on ITV and then watch it at a later date then you do need a licence.
> ...



Bizarre, isn't it. You can't record a TV programme (on any channel) and then watch it...you need a licence. But you can go to the ITV Hub and watch it on catch-up when you don't need a licence !


----------



## Rorschach (20 Jan 2020)

It is completely bizarre and as another poster said one would think they made it complicated on purpose.

It's amazing how quickly you get used not to having these things now. We have not had a TV license for over 10 years, don't miss it at all. 
When we go to hotels that have a TV we very quickly go into brain dead TV watching mode again, rather scary. Some of that is because you don't have your home distractions of course but some of it is simply habit forming.
It really becomes noticeable how people are obsessed though when we visit friends of family and they simply have to have the TV going even when you are talking, eating etc. 

Get rid of it, use a streaming service (other other methods if you are that way inclined) and watch what you want on your own terms when you want it. Otherwise find other things to do, read, talk, learn new skills, go to bed early if you aren't single


----------



## RogerS (20 Jan 2020)

Rorschach":c8giig43 said:


> ....
> Get rid of it, use a streaming service (other other methods if you are that way inclined) and watch what you want on your own terms when you want it. ....



That's the problem. I agree that there is a lot of dross. LOML usually goes through the RadioTimes each morning and flags things up that she wants recorded and other stuff that we both might like to see. I'll have a flick through for stuff I'd like to see. But true there is very little but what there is, you won't get on Netflix. 

The BBC has some very fine programmes as do the others from time to time.


----------



## lanemaux (20 Jan 2020)

In Canada we have not got a " TV licence" ,but , since watching at set times is a hassle I use a site on the internet called Couchtuner. They offer on demand of a huge number of broadcast programs and keep previous episodes for full seasons, some back to their inception. Just google to find it , might be a way to get most of what's worth while for gratis.
Mike


----------



## Steve Maskery (20 Jan 2020)

The problem with that is one of Intellectual Property Rights. From The High Society.com:

CouchTuner is a pirate site, and all of their TV episodes appear to be illegal. This can result in legal repercussions for you depending on where you live. ... In the United States and Europe, you could potentially face criminal charges or be sued for streaming TV shows that you know are pirated.5 Jul 2018
https://thehightechsociety.com/thehightechsociety.com › couchtuner


----------



## ColeyS1 (9 Feb 2020)

Saw this in the newspaper today 







Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Rorschach (9 Feb 2020)

Radio? They'll never be able to charge for that, how would they enforce it? They can't enforce TV watching unless you admit to breaking the law so it would have to be same, except every car on the road would be a potential law breaker :lol: 

The BBC knows what is coming, they just want to delay things as much as possible.


----------



## RogerS (9 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":vet9uktr said:


> ....
> 
> The BBC knows what is coming, they just want to delay things as much as possible.



And long may they do so.

A world only of Netflix? No thank you.


----------



## sammy.se (9 Feb 2020)

Imagine if everyone had to pay for Netflix even if they don't want it... That's the BBC. I hope they move to a subscription/on demand model. I may actually buy a few things as opposed to nothing right now.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## Rorschach (9 Feb 2020)

RogerS":lzrebq1k said:


> Rorschach":lzrebq1k said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



That's fine if you want BBC then you pay for it, plenty of people don't want it but are forced, or rather coerced into paying for it.


----------



## stuartpaul (9 Feb 2020)

Both of course valid opinions. I don’t object to paying the licence, - I suppose I’ve just got used to it over the years.

Those darling tories seem to have the knife out for the Beeb and I think it highly unlikely it will survive in the medium term (who will pay the licence fee if they stop enforcing it?).

I object far more to paying road tax when they don’t fixed the ******* holes in the road!


----------



## Steve Maskery (9 Feb 2020)

stuartpaul":10yw152c said:


> I object far more to paying road tax when they don’t fixed the pineapple holes in the road!



=D> =D> =D>


----------



## FatmanG (9 Feb 2020)

kevinlightfoot":36l1uldz said:


> I am quite happy to pay the licence fee.I listen to radio quite a lot ,watch plenty of television,especially in the winter and consider in the most part that the B.B.C. deliver a good service as for the celebrities pay packets they have always been far too high.Tony Blackburn does three shows a week which are well worth the£3 a week licence fee .I know I could listen to them for free because for many years we haven't needed a licence to just listen to radio,but what would fund the many excellent radio shows( not counting the squeaky little voice of Graham Norton can't stand the man) that the B.B.C. produce I personally think it's a good deal.But the world will always be full of freeloaders.


Its nothing to do with freeloading why I resent paying the license and I think your damned rude. I'm pleased you feel you're getting good value for money I on the other hand don't buts what's even worse is I have no choice in the matter of whether to pay up or not. Its time it was scrapped and turned to a subscription channels giving people choice. Pay you watch no freeloaders allowed :wink:


----------



## Rorschach (9 Feb 2020)

stuartpaul":3e71608z said:


> Both of course valid opinions. I don’t object to paying the licence, - I suppose I’ve just got used to it over the years.
> 
> Those darling tories seem to have the knife out for the Beeb and I think it highly unlikely it will survive in the medium term (who will pay the licence fee if they stop enforcing it?).
> 
> I object far more to paying road tax when they don’t fixed the pineapple holes in the road!



It's not really enforced now, it isn't a criminal matter it's a civil matter and you can only be prosecuted if you are stupid enough to incriminate yourself.


----------



## sammy.se (9 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":1qeqgohh said:


> stuartpaul":1qeqgohh said:
> 
> 
> > Both of course valid opinions. I don’t object to paying the licence, - I suppose I’ve just got used to it over the years.
> ...


I thought it was criminal, hence the current government review into decriminalisation...

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## Terry - Somerset (9 Feb 2020)

The TV licence started in 1946 when there was but one channel in the UK (BBC). Owning a TV was the preserve of only the very wealthy.

In 2020 TV ownership is just about 99%+ universal. There are huge numbers of alternative broadcasters and multitudinous separate radio and TV channels. TVs are affordable by almost everyone.

The remit of the BBC needs thorough review to keep it relevant - it currently seems to have its roots in the 1980s. We need to question whether a tax/state funded broadcaster should fill the airways with repeats, trivia, and programming similar to that provided by other media companies (radio and TV).

The licence fee is now nothing more or less than a tax. It would make very good sense to rid ourselves of the administration and costs of enforcement by funding it through taxation as all other public expenditure.

My own view is that programming should be drastically reduced to retain only those which are of internationally recognised quality and reputation - eg: news, quality drama, natural history, childrens TV, documentaries.


----------



## stuartpaul (9 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":r2rqzc2f said:


> stuartpaul":r2rqzc2f said:
> 
> 
> > Both of course valid opinions. I don’t object to paying the licence, - I suppose I’ve just got used to it over the years.
> ...


Most definitely criminal not civil. There may well be less enforcement now but that doesn’t alter that fact.


----------



## RogerS (9 Feb 2020)

Yup, Stuart. Spot on
.....

_Currently, a person who installs uses a television receiver or watches content on BBC iPlayer without a TV licence is guilty of a criminal offence. This is known as TV licence evasion. TV licence evasion in and of itself is not an imprisonable offence and will not lead to a criminal record in most cases. However, non-payment of the fine imposed, following a criminal conviction, could lead to a risk of imprisonment.

The BBC, operating under its trademark TV Licensing, is responsible for collecting and enforcing the TV licence. It uses a range of methods to encourage people who require a TV licence to purchase one; it says that imprisonment is a ‘last resort’ option for the court where all other methods of enforcement have been unsuccessful.2

Even then, imprisonment, where there has been a default in the payment of a fine, will only occur following a formal inquiry into the offender’s ability to pay._

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... ce-evasion


----------



## Rorschach (10 Feb 2020)

Ok it is is a criminal offence, a criminal offence that doesn't have prison time and doesn't go on your criminal record, sounds awfully like a civil offence already to me. You can also only be prosecuted if you admit the offence. Pretty pointless.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (10 Feb 2020)

The Greek system is to include the cost in the electricity bill - a reasonable assumption that people without electricity are probably not watching television, and that people who do have electricity are probably watching it. No choice to opt out. They also collect local taxes the same way. The big difference is the cost: I haven't looked recently, but I think the TV licence portion is something like €2 per month.

Of course the BBC is the propaganda arm of the government, despite all the feeble claims of impartiality. Will the government want to give up the potential for social control, thought police enforcement system, news suppression, narrative control etc? I think not.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":24d98vzc said:


> Of course the BBC is the propaganda arm of the government, despite all the feeble claims of impartiality. Will the government want to give up the potential for social control, thought police enforcement system, news suppression, narrative control etc? I think not.



You see if you are a supporter of the government you see the BBC as always criticising them, and if you support the opposition you see them as government propaganda. I have friends who swear blind the BBC is left wing and Tory hating, I also have friends who swear blind the BBC are right wing and Labour hating.
Their impartial stance means they are criticised by both sides.
I don't hate that part of them and think they are fairly middle of the road in most of their reporting, they do hate Trump though and they are far too "woke" to survive much longer. Go woke go broke.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Feb 2020)

You are assuming both criticisms are equally valid.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Feb 2020)

phil.p":2jxec27h said:


> You are assuming both criticisms are equally valid.



Again, that depends on who you listen to.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (10 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":2e60ryid said:


> phil.p":2e60ryid said:
> 
> 
> > You are assuming both criticisms are equally valid.



There used to be a whole other thread about the BBC and it's biases. Best we don't go there again, but the BBC is not evenhanded, it is in the business of propaganda, and very sophisticated, clever propaganda it is, too. Left Vs right is irrelevant to that effort.


----------



## RogerS (10 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":3drr0fpf said:


> .... Go woke go broke.



=D> Excellent. Couldn't have put that better myself.


----------



## Trevanion (10 Feb 2020)

I’ve had to move down to an ice cave in Antarctica to stop the vile, blood-sucking media corporations from dictating my life and force feeding me fake news! Not to mention all the beeb vans with their brain melting license detection technology, I should be ok until they come up with a way to mount the emitter to a dog sled :shock: 

*Adjusts tinfoil hat for snugness*


----------



## whiskywill (10 Feb 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1sr9uxsv said:


> My understanding is that if you don't pay, they send you a threatening letter. If you ignore the letter, they send you a scarily threatening letter. If you ignore that, they send you a "we'll send the boys round" letter.




I have 13 "red" letters and 2 "we'll send the boys round" letters although I have paid my license fee for many years by direct debit. Unfortunately nobody visited me.


----------



## Geoff_S (12 Feb 2020)

But if we don’t pay our licence fees the nation will become weak!

So says the BBC chairman :roll:


----------



## Irish Rover (12 Feb 2020)

The BBC has been taken over by minority groups. It is sadly no longer representative of the social and cultural make up of our country and is not fit for purpose.

Scrap the license fee and let them find another funding model.


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2020)

Irish Rover":3adijfv1 said:


> The BBC has been taken over by minority groups. It is sadly no longer representative of the social and cultural make up of our country and is not fit for purpose.
> 
> Scrap the license fee and let them find another funding model.



Curious to know which minority groups you think have taken the BBC over.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Feb 2020)

RogerS":1qprd7jk said:


> Irish Rover":1qprd7jk said:
> 
> 
> > The BBC has been taken over by minority groups. It is sadly no longer representative of the social and cultural make up of our country and is not fit for purpose.
> ...



The "woke" :lol:


----------



## Irish Rover (12 Feb 2020)

RogerS":1gj146lr said:


> Irish Rover":1gj146lr said:
> 
> 
> > The BBC has been taken over by minority groups. It is sadly no longer representative of the social and cultural make up of our country and is not fit for purpose.
> ...



I think it's fairly obvious. 
Let's put it this way. June Sarpong has been employed as "Creative Diversity Director" at the BBC on a handsome salary.

I resent being forced to contribute financially to that.


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2020)

Irish Rover":13kb8bzp said:


> RogerS":13kb8bzp said:
> 
> 
> > Irish Rover":13kb8bzp said:
> ...



I had to Google her. Then picked up on the term "Creative Diversity" aka megaloads of BS and I take your point totally. Bit like their stupid insistence of having at least one female participant on panel shows etc. Not that I am against female participants, just that....at the moment and in some genres...comedy for example...there aren't (a) that many and (b) not that many funny ones. Many are there just to tick the diversity box and that is IMO the wrong way to go about improving things. It makes a whole mockery of diversity etc. Same goes for 'positive discrimination'. People should be taken on their merit and not to tick some fatuous diversity target.


----------



## rafezetter (12 Feb 2020)

sammy.se":2uhh3ctp said:


> Imagine if everyone had to pay for Netflix even if they don't want it... That's the BBC. I hope they move to a subscription/on demand model. I may actually buy a few things as opposed to nothing right now.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk



Except it costs more.... the BBC that is.

Why ppl (and the BBC) go on about "not being able to make the content YOU love" - which is an actual BBC quote reported in The Times, utterly baffles me - do they think the general public don't notice award winning series like... oh lets see... Game of Thrones, Battlestar Galactica to name just two, (though GoT on it's own should prove the point) alongside all the others are produced NOT ON THE BBC's DIME? As for Eastenders - isn't it about time that was put to pasture?

So they have adverts, big deal, go make a coffee or tea or spend those 5 minutes actually interacting with the other members of the family if you can tear them away from thier mobile phones...... I also have to wonder just how many UK households don't have a cable box of some kind, and crucially are NOT ELIGABLE for the "over 65 free licence" - I would imagine they are in the minority by a significant margin.

If the BBC went to a "pay to view" system, maybe we would get less dross like the walking dead of Eastenders, and more of the stuff the BBC used to be famed for (and still is now and again).

It would also be helpful if ex-BBC employees drawing a pension didn't chip into the thread - or at the very least openly declare thier affiliations; as I'm led to beleive that's the situation of one vocal contributor in this thread.


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2020)

rafezetter":1z1i04nl said:


> .....
> It would also be helpful if ex-BBC employees drawing a pension didn't chip into the thread - or at the very least openly declare thier affiliations; as I'm led to beleive that's the situation of one vocal contributor in this thread.



Do you mean me ? Not sure why that should preclude me from commenting. After all it was in the early '70's and I left before the 1980's. It's only one of my work pensions and a not particularly large one at that as I didn't put in the years of service.


----------



## stuartpaul (12 Feb 2020)

The BBC is unfortunately in the position as being seen by many as an 'exemplar' public sector employer and therefore has to be seen to jump through every pink and fluffy hoop known to man (and a few more that aren't).

There's always going to be people who don't like the output (picking on Eastenders is unfair, - it's a soft, slow moving, easy to hit target!) and that's not a fair, reasoned argument is it? Battlestar is in the same league in my opinion.

If the BBC moves to a voluntary fee paying setup it will be dead in the water before the end of this parliament which I think would suit a number of current political agendas. I think it would be sad to see it fail but it is going to be increasingly difficult to continue to justify the licence fee approach.



rafezetter":2wvuvr0g said:


> It would also be helpful if ex-BBC employees drawing a pension didn't chip into the thread - or at the very least openly declare thier affiliations; as I'm led to beleive that's the situation of one vocal contributor in this thread.


Not sure what that has to do with it? Doesn't make opinions any less relevant.


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2020)

If it went to subscription I suspect that you'd be surprised at just how much is no longer covered. A lot of sport, I suspect.


----------



## AJB Temple (12 Feb 2020)

Interesting subject. I listen to BBC Radio 4 a great deal, and some BBC TV. In years past I would never have objected to the licence fee but I do now. 

There are two main reasons. The wokeness and obsession with diversity over quality are increasingly irritating. The BBC cling to a sense of entitlement and can be patronising in a "we know best" way. Their news website is beyond dull and is one of the few that does not allow public comment, which given that we are forced to pay, is inappropriate I feel. 

Secondly the quality of content has declined. I am not interested in many sports, but when the BBC put bowls, darts and snooker on prime channels at or close to prime times I fear they are scraping the barrel. It is also laden with repetition and news broadcasts are very guilty of this and appear to ignore that fact that we have been in an internet age for some time. 

There is a rising tide of discontent with the BBC and I think that the recent inflationary rise was a very stupid own goal. At the very least its time for management to be swept out along with a number of layers of unnecessary people doing pointless jobs to serve political correctness. 

Viewing habits are changing radically. Even in TV we view most content now on apps. This includes Netflix, Apple TV and YouTube. I would be quite happy to have a cheaper Sky sub and wipe the BBC from it. 

In fact I think I am motivating myself to use the BBC notification system they publish on their website, to opt out and be a non-user for 2 years.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Feb 2020)

Think how much they could save by not covering any football. :lol:


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2020)

AJB Temple":f9juvvai said:


> Interesting subject. I listen to BBC Radio 4 a great deal, and some BBC TV. In years past I would never have objected to the licence fee but I do now.
> 
> There are two main reasons. The wokeness and obsession with diversity over quality are increasingly irritating. The BBC cling to a sense of entitlement and can be patronising in a "we know best" way. Their news website is beyond dull and is one of the few that does not allow public comment, which given that we are forced to pay, is inappropriate I feel.
> 
> ...



That is one of the best descriptions as to what is wrong with the BBC that I have seen. =D>


----------



## lurker (12 Feb 2020)

AJB Temple":6tfumj9n said:


> Interesting subject. I listen to BBC Radio 4 a great deal, and some BBC TV. In years past I would never have objected to the licence fee but I do now.
> 
> There are two main reasons. The wokeness and obsession with diversity over quality are increasingly irritating. The BBC cling to a sense of entitlement and can be patronising in a "we know best" way. Their news website is beyond dull and is one of the few that does not allow public comment, which given that we are forced to pay, is inappropriate I feel.
> 
> ...



Not disagreeing with that, but it is just you (and me).
My 93 year old father in law loved the bowls and snooker, as he was close to being house bound for the final three years there was not much to enjoy.


----------



## thetyreman (12 Feb 2020)

the most recent doctor who is the perfect example of trying to please everybody, whilst pleasing nobody at the same time, it's for me the worst series they've ever created, and not because the doctor is female, it's the cast, the PC ness of it and the poor quality writing. The series before it with capaldi was one of the best so it's a real let down in my opinion.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Feb 2020)

thetyreman":2c0ok3pb said:


> the most recent doctor who is the perfect example of trying to please everybody, whilst pleasing nobody at the same time, it's for me the worst series they've ever created, and not because the doctor is female, it's the cast, the PC ness of it and the poor quality writing. The series before it with capaldi was one of the best so it's a real let down.



I think it was earlier in this thread I said it, but it bears repeating again from what I have heard about Dr Who. "Go woke, go broke".


----------



## lanemaux (12 Feb 2020)

As an unrepentant Whovy (Dr. who fan) , I agree with the above. I also do not blame the actors . Writing is key to good television as is the shows direction as provided by the show runner. 
The direction we have been heading here is well expressed by a stock bit from the Animainiacs cartoon of a couple of decades ago.
*WHEEL OF MORALITY , TURN TURN TURN. TELL US THE LESSON WE MUST LEARN.
All fine and well until it gets boring.*


----------



## AJB Temple (12 Feb 2020)

Lurker I do understand that the BBC is necessary for some, especially quite old, people. But this is a declining minority. My kids are 17 and 22 and do not watch anything except on apps. My wife and I watch almost no TV live and the vast majority of what we watch is non-BBC Sky, Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime from catch up or recordings. 

The world has changed really radically in the last decade. It is not going to go back and the BBC model no longer works for many people. It is fundamentally unfair in the view of a great many people. 

The election coverage and the crazy woke Islington attitude, has done the BBC a huge amount of damage.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Feb 2020)

I have to agree with the negative comments about the BBC. Over the last 10-20 years it has morphed from a generally high quality broadcaster to one which sometimes produces excellent world class programming, but increasingly outputs low quality, "me too" programming swamped by repeats.

Management is clearly more concerned with "correctness" than functioning as an effective media company - and it shows.

The real question is - what does Boris think? He clearly has the resolve and self confidence to implement that which is in his political interest - eg: Brexit and HS2. He has the political clout (majority) to do to the BBC that which he sees fit, apparently irrespective of public opinion.

In my opinion it needs drastically slimming to concentrate only on quality. This may see the end of 50-75% of radio and TV programming and ensure that what remains is something of which the UK can be proud rather than living on past glories.


----------



## RogerS (13 Feb 2020)

Another irritation with the BBC is their 'we know best' attitude. That and their use of Crapita to man the complaints platform. They are past masters at deflection, abrogation or downright refusal to give an answer.


----------



## Lons (13 Feb 2020)

I also agree that the BBC is outdated, has deteriorated, and we should not be forced to pay a licence fee in the current environment however if the licence fee was abolished as I think it should be then what about the likes of Lurkers dad? He doesn't contribute at that age and possibly can't afford to buy in Sky, BT or Amazon, certainly many old folk can't and is it morally right that they shouldn't have some enjoyment in their last few years?
These old people generally don't have the apps or indeed knowledge or day to day memory to use them.

I don't know the answer btw and am purely selfish in not wanting to pay what I see as an overpriced tax on the little BBC content of interest to me.

All that assuming the BBC would drop the sport and allow free access via Freeview of course.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Feb 2020)

Lons":1gu31hgs said:


> I also agree that the BBC is outdated, has deteriorated, and we should not be forced to pay a licence fee in the current environment however if the licence fee was abolished as I think it should be then what about the likes of Lurkers dad? He doesn't contribute at that age and possibly can't afford to buy in Sky, BT or Amazon, certainly many old folk can't and is it morally right that they shouldn't have some enjoyment in their last few years?
> These old people generally don't have the apps or indeed knowledge or day to day memory to use them.
> 
> I don't know the answer btw and am purely selfish in not wanting to pay what I see as an overpriced tax on the little BBC content of interest to me.
> ...



Freeview could continue without the BBC, or with a limited selection of programmes, or BBC with adverts. Just because the license fee goes doesn't mean free TV stops.


----------



## Lons (13 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":2d7qg8c8 said:


> Freeview could continue without the BBC, or with a limited selection of programmes, or BBC with adverts. Just because the license fee goes doesn't mean free TV stops.


Yeah didn't really mean that but without the licence fee the BBC program quality would at least initially drop rapidly I would have thought.
My point about old people in light of Lurkers dad and the snooker is that they possibly couldn't watch sport without a pay service. My father was housebound in a chair using a nebuliser for the last 8 years of life and TV and sport was what he lived for, there are a lot of people in that situation.
My MIL is 92 and now in a care home, she relies on TV but is lucky if essential she could afford to pay, she's a minority I think.

That said, I would selfishly ditch the licence tax and make the BBC compete with commercial channels on an equal basis. TV advertising is not an issue now for viewers as it's so easy to skip them.


----------



## Irish Rover (13 Feb 2020)

RogerS":kja6djvo said:


> Another irritation with the BBC is their 'we know best' attitude. That and their use of Crapita to man the complaints platform. They are past masters at deflection, abrogation or downright refusal to give an answer.



Wow! I didn’t know that. Every day’s a school day, as they say.

So the same company that harasses and bullies people who don’t have a tv licence, also forms the protective shield around the BBC from public complaints.

I have complained a handful of times over the years and every reply was as patronising and glib as the previous one.

If I wasn’t married to a lovely, sweet woman I would cancel my licence today. I would relish a visit from capita but the bride wouldn’t enjoy it at all. Plus they are well known for targeting and bullying women who answer the door to them.


----------



## Steve Maskery (13 Feb 2020)

I'll repeat the advice if you get a visit:
"I withdraw your Implied Right of Access."


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Feb 2020)

If the only reason for keeping the BBC are elderly viewers who rely on the BBCs unique output this should not be funded through a flat rate tax on all households.

Far better would be to either (a) allow the BBC to commercialise through advertising and subscription models, or (b) increase the old age pension to allow the elderly to subscribe to whatever channel they want.

A sudden cut to BBC funding is not the right way to go. There needs to be a steady licence fee reduction over (say) 5 years, with a clear plan agreed with the government about the funding the BBC will get from the Treasury in the future.

The BBC should plan accordingly - one hopes they will have the good sense to make focussed service reductions rather than the normal public sector response of spreading the pain and lowering the quality of everything.


----------



## El Barto (13 Feb 2020)

I cancelled my licence recently, very liberating. When the TV licence man comes to my door I will invite him in, offer him a cup of tea and gladly show him that I have iPlayer installed on absolutely nothing, because it's b (hammer) llocks.


----------



## ColeyS1 (13 Feb 2020)

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on this. I'd more than happily pay £75 a year to listen to the radio without adverts. I can live without the bbc tv content. I record pretty much everything unless I'm looking for something to pass the time. Adverts are more or less 4 minutes which means two presses of the forward button and it's all but there. It feels the equivalent of the ppi scandal. In years to come we'll wonder how they got away with it for so long.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve Maskery (13 Feb 2020)

El Barto":15etzjbs said:


> I cancelled my licence recently, very liberating. When the TV licence man comes to my door I will invite him in, offer him a cup of tea and gladly show him that I have iPlayer installed on absolutely nothing, because it's b (hammer) llocks.



The only reason I don't do that is that it kind of legitimises their desire to come poking around. I've been left alone for a few years now, but at one time it was regular. I used to tell him that he was welcome to enter, if armed with a search warrant and accompanied by a police officer. Good luck with getting a search warrant.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Feb 2020)

El Barto":1z3syxg9 said:


> I cancelled my licence recently, very liberating. When the TV licence man comes to my door I will invite him in, offer him a cup of tea and gladly show him that I have iPlayer installed on absolutely nothing, because it's b (hammer) llocks.



That's a stupid thing to do, they are well known for lying about what they have seen. Simply refuse to let them in without a warrant.


----------



## RogerS (13 Feb 2020)

Steve Maskery":12wlj1gn said:


> I'll repeat the advice if you get a visit:
> "I withdraw your Implied Right of Access."



That's almost as good as the response one should give to a constable..

"Have you anything to say, Sir?"

"Yes, Officer, please don't hit me again" 

So when in court, the Officer is asked 'And what did the Defendant say ?" ...


----------



## RogerS (13 Feb 2020)

Terry - Somerset":353nziuf said:


> .... (b) increase the old age pension to allow the elderly to subscribe to whatever channel they want.
> 
> ....



Name one channel that gives the breadth and diversity of the BBC's three channels.


----------



## El Barto (13 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":1k54o4tr said:


> El Barto":1k54o4tr said:
> 
> 
> > I cancelled my licence recently, very liberating. When the TV licence man comes to my door I will invite him in, offer him a cup of tea and gladly show him that I have iPlayer installed on absolutely nothing, because it's b (hammer) llocks.
> ...



Nah it’s fine. I’ll film it.


----------



## John Brown (14 Feb 2020)

I, also, have read this thread with interest. Personally, I don't have a problem with the licence fee. I watch a bit of BBC TV, although we use Netflix and Amazon more, I listen to R4 and the world service a lot, and I read the news on the BBC website.

I think it's fairly good value for money, but then my wife pays it.

Yes, I suppose you could regard it as a tax, but then again, we probably all pay taxes for some things we don't use. Like education, judging from a lot of what I read on this forum.
That was a joke, by the way.
But seriously, if you choose to have no children, you don't get a tax discount. Ditto if you pay for private medical care. Don't use public libraries? Never visit museums? Tough. You're paying for them anyway. 

It's probably too late now, but at some point in the past, maybe back in the 70s, when TV sets outnumbered landline phones, the "Licence" could have been dropped and quietly shifted to general taxation. After all, it does seem as though a lot of folks have the biggest problem with the bullying goons who are employed to enforce the current system.

They wrote to me once, a long time ago after I'd moved house, and told me they had "Licence detector vans" operating in the area. I replied that I owned a licence, but kept it in a Faraday cage, so their chances of detecting it were slim.


----------



## Lons (14 Feb 2020)

John Brown":1tfck7tt said:


> They wrote to me once, a long time ago after I'd moved house, and told me they had "Licence detector vans" operating in the area. I replied that I owned a licence, but kept it in a Faraday cage, so their chances of detecting it were slim.



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2020)

Quick practical question.

The suggestion that the BBC should "move to subscription based charging" is often made and it seems to be gaining support. If the govt decided that was the policy, how would it work?

Remember that all the BBC's output is available, unmetered, with no subscriber ID, via a transmission tower and an aerial. ( Along with the rest of the Freeview channels.)

Subscription services such as Sky, Netflix or Amazon Prime all need a broadband service. 

Roughly speaking, the most basic broadband service costs more than a TV licence. It's not available in some parts of the country or in caravans or boats. So compelling people to buy a fresh service for more than they pay now might not go down very well.

What mechanism could be used to identify and bill everyone who wants the BBC channels using the existing transmitter and tuner delivery?

Preferably one which doesn't need a whole lot of new electronics and extra energy to run it.


----------



## Irish Rover (14 Feb 2020)

Encrypt the broadcast and sell smart cards to decrypt on the tv


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2020)

Irish Rover":2bf065c9 said:


> Encrypt the broadcast and sell smart cards to decrypt on the tv



Does that still work? I don't know, but this Wikipedia page looks like a story of successive attempts being cracked and needing to be replaced. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_encryption

Do TV's have slots for these cards any more?


----------



## RogerS (14 Feb 2020)

AndyT":i0m60ieu said:


> ....
> What mechanism could be used to identify and bill everyone who wants the BBC channels using the existing transmitter and tuner delivery?
> 
> Preferably one which doesn't need a whole lot of new electronics and extra energy to run it.



They will rent you a smart box for an annual rental fee of £157.50.


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2020)

RogerS":2aikewkx said:


> AndyT":2aikewkx said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



But is there a solution which doesn't need a whole lot of new electronics and extra energy to run it? And what's in the smart box - remember, we can't assume there's a broadband connection or even a phone line for it to talk to a central service.


----------



## RogerS (14 Feb 2020)

AndyT":v2yps718 said:


> RogerS":v2yps718 said:
> 
> 
> > AndyT":v2yps718 said:
> ...



I think you missed my too-subtle point :wink:


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2020)

No, I can see you set the rental fee to equal the licence fee - and that's part of another interesting aspect we could discuss, but for now I'd like to focus on how much extra stuff and hassle would be needed for a subscription service to be implemented. That's a question I haven't seen discussed elsewhere and I worry that a sensible sounding headline can drag in a whole mess of failure when some poor soul gets told to implement it. 

So far we seem to be heading down the path of millions of extra little electronic gizmos which would be a waste of resources. Of course it's made harder because we're trying to design a universally available service. The likes of Sky and Netflix don't need to pursue someone with a TV and an aerial but no broadband - they are not going to make a profitable customer.


----------



## John Brown (14 Feb 2020)

AndyT":2un6o8tl said:


> Quick practical question.
> 
> The suggestion that the BBC should "move to subscription based charging" is often made and it seems to be gaining support. If the govt decided that was the policy, how would it work?
> 
> ...


That's the crux of the problem. A lot of set top boxes or Digital Terrestrial TV sets don't have a slot for a card, and as you mention, there used to be a massive grey industry devoted to "cracking" the encryption anyway. 
It's a conundrum, and I will be interested to see what happens in the next few years.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Feb 2020)

AndyT":3trhk9ej said:


> Remember that all the BBC's output is available, unmetered, with no subscriber ID, via a transmission tower and an aerial. ( Along with the rest of the Freeview channels.)
> 
> What mechanism could be used to identify and bill everyone who wants the BBC channels using the existing transmitter and tuner delivery?
> 
> Preferably one which doesn't need a whole lot of new electronics and extra energy to run it.



Well the current system doesn't actually know if the people watching the service are paying for it. As you say it broadcasts for free and the license payment is based on trust and fear for the most part. 

As to how would you implement it, I don't know exactly, this is why advert based models are probably the better solution for general broadcast with an ad free service available for a cost.


----------



## RogerS (14 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":13yoqjnb said:


> ....
> As to how would you implement it, I don't know exactly, this is why advert based models are probably the better solution for general broadcast with an ad free service available for a cost.



A broadcast ad-free service will have exactly the same technical issues as a subscription model.


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":1d2s2gz5 said:


> Well the current system doesn't actually know if the people watching the service are paying for it. As you say it broadcasts for free and the license payment is based on trust and fear for the most part.


Quite so, but so far the licence fee system raises enough money to fund the service, so that issue has not been a barrier. 



Rorschach":1d2s2gz5 said:


> As to how would you implement it, I don't know exactly, this is why advert based models are probably the better solution for general broadcast with an ad free service available for a cost.


I can see that ad free service could easily be offered to those streaming their TV but for anyone using transmitter+aerial we're back to the little boxes again. 

As John Brown confirmed, encryption + cards is old technology and wouldn't look like progress. 

I'd rather be told that our leaders have a better plan that we've not thought of , but it looks to me as if any shift to subscription is likely to be littered with costs that bring no benefits.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Feb 2020)

RogerS":1n1nfllm said:


> Rorschach":1n1nfllm said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



The ad free service would only be available with other services such as sky, cable, internet etc, not available on the current freeview type service.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Feb 2020)

AndyT":1rrirdqz said:


> Rorschach":1rrirdqz said:
> 
> 
> > As to how would you implement it, I don't know exactly, this is why advert based models are probably the better solution for general broadcast with an ad free service available for a cost.
> ...



Yep, the ad free service would only be available with other services such as sky, cable, internet etc, not available on the current freeview type service using an aerial. Compromises must be made. The aerial type service is really only catering to an ageing (and dying) population.


----------



## AndyT (14 Feb 2020)

I'd be happier with "Compromises must be made, if they bring greater benefits" but I expect you are right and I shall be disappointed but not surprised.

There are of course loads of other complications that would flow from any change to the current system, since the licence fee also pays for world, national and local radio, iPlayer and Sounds, S4C and some other stuff - https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if- ... -for-top13

So those services would need to stop, be funded from other sources, or remain as an annoying levy on anyone paying a monthly fee for a decryption card. I'm glad I don't have to decide all this as it seems likely that whatever change is made there will be a lot of opposition from anyone who feels that it's all still unfair, or unfair in a new way.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Feb 2020)

Whatever happens it will be unfair and pain in the rear I am sure, but it is an overdue change by several years now.

Ultimately it has been unfair to lots of people for a long time as once you started getting more than a handful of channels you were being forced to pay to legally watch channels that you were already paying additionally for (either subscription or by watching ads). They should have done something back then and it probably wouldn't have developed into such a heated argument. Of course the antics of Capita have not helped matters either, 10 minutes on youtube watching them will be sure to sour your view of the BBC even further.


----------



## RogerS (14 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":1ru3q4j0 said:


> ....Of course the antics of Capita have not helped matters either, 10 minutes on youtube watching them will be sure to sour your view of the BBC even further.



Do you have a link ?


----------



## Rorschach (14 Feb 2020)

RogerS":1tpnzqld said:


> Rorschach":1tpnzqld said:
> 
> 
> > ....Of course the antics of Capita have not helped matters either, 10 minutes on youtube watching them will be sure to sour your view of the BBC even further.
> ...



Just search on youtube for TV license goons or similar, plenty on there.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (14 Feb 2020)

I'm not sure if I am somehow missing the point, but other media organisations seem entirely capable of managing subscription services.

If the issue is about running a subscription service via an aerial and then decoded, then we are in danger of having policy dominated by the very small number of homes which do not have broadband (currently <10%) or those with a very slow connection.

Given roll out of 5G and the intention to increase speeds in rural communities, the problem should disappear in a few years anyway.


----------



## RogerS (14 Feb 2020)

Terry - Somerset":1cjf5uk2 said:


> I'm not sure if I am somehow missing the point, but other media organisations seem entirely capable of managing subscription services.
> 
> If the issue is about running a subscription service via an aerial and then decoded, then we are in danger of having policy dominated by the very small number of homes which do not have broadband (currently <10%) or those with a very slow connection.
> 
> Given roll out of 5G and the intention to increase speeds in rural communities, the problem should disappear in a few years anyway.



Sorry Terry but you're wrong on so many counts.

According to the ONS, March 2019 over 5 million people have never used the internet. Hardly a 'small' number. This amounted to 10 per cent of the UK population in 2018, when the survey was conducted.

_The vast majority of this offline minority are older people, with 79 per cent of the total aged 65 or over._ So if you wait 20 years ..... :shock: 

_But a lot are also disabled, making up 23.3 per cent of those who never go online....._ which I find concerning...maybe financial reasons ?

So those people are hardly 'dominating'.

As for 5G...what a waste of time. It's only there to support the IoT which is a disaster waiting to happen. We DON'T need to turn our bloody kettle on from our settee. Get off your fat backsides !


----------



## sammy.se (15 Feb 2020)

Subscription services were available long before the internet.

Conflating internet with subscription service makes no sense.

Or.. the beeb can just start running adverts (like they do outside of the UK) and be 'free'

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyT (15 Feb 2020)

Suggestions so far seem mostly to hit the problem that just to carry on with what they get now, some groups of viewers would have to pay more than at present.
That's the opposite of all the previous upgrades (625 lines for BBC2, colour, digital for C5 and other extra channels) where most people willingly bought into the new technology.

But I see in the news today that Julian Knight, chair of the committee tasked with sorting this all out, has noticed that there are some technical challenges - perhaps he's been reading this thread!

_Despite calls from some quarters for the BBC to become a Netflix-style subscription service, Knight said the idea of moving the corporation straight to a subscription service was “for the birds” given the technical challenges of putting still-popular television and radio channels behind a paywall._


----------



## Rorschach (15 Feb 2020)

What Julian Knight isn't acknowledging though is that it is already behind a paywall, but one that people are forced to pay whether they want it or not. The technical challenge is making it fairer.


----------



## Duncan A (15 Feb 2020)

I'm the last person to defend the BBC's "wokeness" and "news lite" reporting but many of the arguments around the licence fee revolve around the public service element, rather than technical issues.
If we accept that the BBC is to remain independent, accepting advertising becomes a can of worms. If your biggest advertiser is guilty of misdeeds, would Panorama be free to run an exposé?
The purpose of the licence fee is to remove the temptation to give in to commercial pressures and to distance the BBC from political interference. The latter is not entirely effective but it does work up to a point.
Perhaps the main discussion to be had is really whether we want a broadcaster that is more or less free of outside influences and pressures - it can never be entirely impartial as the people who work there have to make value judgements to please everybody. Impossible.
Hope this doesn't turn into another BBC thread; nothing in the above is meant to be controversial, just food for thought.
Duncan


----------



## AES (15 Feb 2020)

Interesting discussion.

Personally I have the feeling from past experience both from my times of living inside and outside the UK, that output from the Beeb goes in "waves" - for a few years Beeb output is generally fine to excellent (IMO), but then we have a few years when Beeb output has really deteriorated.

BUT as ever, that's very largely a matter of personal taste I think - e.g. at present BBC TV has very little that I want to watch (again IMO, they need more programmes like the RNLI documentary "Saving Lives at Sea") but as above, "they'll get better output generally in a year or so".

I'm not so happy with BBC Radio 4 these days - compared with a few years back - but again "it'll get better again" I think, and it remains my No.1 radio listen.

Personally I never objected to paying the licence fee, and again, purely IMO, the Beeb is generally no where near as bad as it's often painted (though I DO agree about inflated salaries, differences between male & female salaries, and too many non-productive managers). (And as a silly aside, I'm madly in love - in ALL respects - with Laurra Kuensberg, BBC TV Political correspondent)! 

Anyway, I don't pay the UK Licence fee here of course - I, and everyone else here pays the Swiss equivalent, which just like so many other things here, is VERY expensive - roughly double your £160 pa!

And throughout all my "world roaming" I've seldom (never?) come across anything as good as the Beeb in general terms 

Just my take though.

And judging by this thread, there seem to be loads of UK residents who've clearly had enough of the present system. But how to fix it so that even the (apparent) majority are satisfied again? Sorry, no idea!

P.S. Agree 100% with Duncan A above about "politics" - this thread should NOT IMO become a political rant - "So far so good" (as the bloke who jumped off the top of the Empire State Building was heard to say).


----------



## RogerS (15 Feb 2020)

Isn't the solution already here ? If you want to watch the BBC off-air then pay the licence. If you don't and Netflix does it for you then stream it and remove your aerial.


----------



## ColeyS1 (15 Feb 2020)

Say if you want to watch the other channels but not pay through the teeth for the bbc content ? 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerS (15 Feb 2020)

ColeyS1":1592r9yb said:


> Say if you want to watch the other channels but not pay through the teeth for the bbc content ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk




Most of it is streamable, isn't it ?


----------



## AES (15 Feb 2020)

I've got another point (Swiss) to add to the above debate. This MAY be applicable to UK-based members , today (?) or in the future.

This is currently Swiss "breaking news" today and is now creating a major uproar here.

Some time back in the 60s or 70s, a Swiss bloke founded a company called Crypto AG to make electro-mechanical encryption/decryption machines, much smaller and lighter than the famous WWII German Enigma machines, but also "better"/more secure. Sometime later he died in a road accident (accident or not??? - see below) and his son took the company over.

The company has had great success and sold this machine to companies world-wide, amongst others, in S. America, Far & mid East - not only for commercial companies but also for military services, Embassies, and other "official" institutions in those countries.

BUT, at the time of the son's company takeover and the introduction of a new Chief Engineer, it "seems" that both the Swiss and German secret services AND the CIA somehow or other got involved in ownership/running of the company. Since that takeover, there's been a "backdoor" into the encryption of all those machines, and if you were in the Swiss, German, or American secret services, you could decode everyone's "secret" messages.

Back in the 1980's some Sales Engineer from Crypto had sold these machines to Iran and he was subsequently imprisoned and tortured. Though he was subsequently released and returned to Switzerland he was then immediately sacked by Crypto. Throughout his period of imprisonment and on his return, he claimed that he had no idea there was a "backdoor" into the machine. A "serious investigation" was started by the police but just quietly fizzled out some time later. 

Then followed a story in the Washinghton Post about a week ago saying that Crypto AG machines were regularly monitored by the CIA and others. 

In the equivalent of the BBC panorama programme on Swiss TV just v2 nights ago, all sorts of people were interviewed, including that "new" Chief Engineer from the 1970s. 

He claimed that the imprisoned employee definitely did NOT know anything at all bout the machine's "backdoor" and that the evidence he gave to the police at the time of the enquiry was never asked to be repeated as formal evidence in a court, nor was he asked to put anything in writing. He further claimed that the equivalent of the Swiss PM at the time MUST have known about the "backdoor", if not in detail, at least in principle. The Chief Engineer also claimed that at the time of the UK/Argentine Falklands war, the UK had received secret info via the CIA on the then current Argentine war plans - Argentine had bought the Crypto machines some time before.

That programme also interviewed several past and present Swiss politicians, including the above bloke who was PM at the time, and (surprise surprise) all of whom agreed that it was "all absolutely shocking and awful but none of them did know then or do now know anything at all about it! AND also, based on Washington Post info, the above TV programme also claimed that the Crypto original founder's road accident (above) wasn't an accident at all but had been "engineered" by "someone". 

So far so good one might say, and typical of journalists going off at (mostly) half-cock - and typical of so many awful scandals and conspiracy scandals that you hear from time to time just about everywhere.

But now to the (possible?) crunch as far as this thread is concerned:

The above Panorama-like Swiss TV programme was broadcast on SRF Channel 1 TV (BBC 1 equivalent) and is "owned" by SRG. SRG is a government funded and supposedly independent "company", with all/most funds coming from the Swiss TV licence fee, though there IS some advertising money and I think also some "private" money in SRG too.

But they claim they are most definitely independent.

So imagine the uproar in today's papers and radio when the Director of SRG said in an interview today that there will be NO more programmes of any sort about Crypto on Swiss (SRG) radio or TV.

Like UK though, we do have private TV and radio stations, so we'll see what happens.

Regarding the BBC though, apart from being a "consumer" of their programmes, I have no real info about the reality of the BBC's environment in today's UK.

Call me naïve if you like, but I just cannot imagine the BBC apparently bowing to some "backroom government pressure" and cancelling any programmes like that described above.

So whatever you and your politicians all decide about the BBC (like Brexit, I have no say whatever in the matter) just "be careful what you wish for"!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (15 Feb 2020)

We need to decide what model we want for the BBC - it could be a mixture:

- free to air and largely unchanged
- mix of free to air, subscription/advertising, world service role
- completely free of government or taxpayer funding

We then need to decide how it is funded in each model - possibly a mixture of TV licence as at present, as public expenditure grant from Treasury, by viewer subscription, by advertising and sponsorship

Radical changes to almost anything will not keep everybody happy - it depends on age, technology, perceptions of current output etc. Note that other free to air broadcasters will not stop if the BBC stops - it may even help expand programming by slowing the reduction of advertising revenues.

We simply need to plan any transition to allow people reasonable time to adapt - then it's just tough! (I know this is unsympathetic, but otherwise nothing will ever change)

My own take on the issue is:

- TV licence is an outdated historical legacy and should be scrapped
- the best of BBC (probably 25-30% of output) should be funded centrally
- foreign office to directly fund world service and similar
- merits of a state broadcaster independent of external commercial pressures 
- balanced by the risk of a state broadcaster delivering propaganda 
- other programming sinks or swims depending on commercial profitability

Any transition to be over a period of several years (5-8?) so that staff, contracts etc etc can be sorted as harmoniously as possible.


----------



## RogerS (15 Feb 2020)

AES":20ttwa0r said:


> ....
> Call me naïve if you like, but I just cannot imagine the BBC apparently bowing to some "backroom government pressure" and cancelling any programmes like that described above.
> ....



Well, the one programme that immediately comes to mind is the 1965 BBC programme " The War Game". That was pulled due to Govt pressure.


----------



## RogerS (15 Feb 2020)

Terry - Somerset":2i8w6ma1 said:


> ....
> - the best of BBC (probably 25-30% of output) should be funded centrally
> ....



Who decides 'the best' ? And how do they decide ? On what criteria ?

Out of curiosity, which three programmes would you put in 'the Best'.


----------



## AES (15 Feb 2020)

Don't remember that one, sorry Roger S. But what about the BBC (and ITV) publicity going on at present in UK re the "unnecessary" baby deaths in E-Kent?

AND, to be fair, if you need to go back to 1965 to find an example, does that not more or less "prove" what I think I know about the BBC?


----------



## Blackswanwood (15 Feb 2020)

RogerS":37bd2yu4 said:


> Terry - Somerset":37bd2yu4 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



In our house there would never be agreement on the answer to that last question!

I think the BBC have an impossible job - they are bound by the Royal Charter and get the blame for a funding model that has been imposed on them.

Peaky Blinders, The Night Manager and McMafia are three that I would list as amongst their best and worth paying for.


----------



## RogerS (15 Feb 2020)

AES":3oayfnmp said:


> Don't remember that one, sorry Roger S.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game Well worth watching. I'd forgotten all about it and saw it in the cinema. Never have I seen an audience leave the cinema virtually silent and shell-shocked. Even now,just thinking about it sends a shiver down my spine.



AES":3oayfnmp said:


> But what about the BBC (and ITV) publicity going on at present in UK re the "unnecessary" baby deaths in E-Kent?


I can't comment as I never watch the news.


----------



## AES (15 Feb 2020)

Thanks RogerS, I'll follow that link sometime.


----------



## RogerS (15 Feb 2020)

Blackswanwood":1t4yt6fq said:


> RogerS":1t4yt6fq said:
> 
> 
> > Terry - Somerset":1t4yt6fq said:
> ...



I'd agree on the middle one. Never saw nor was interested in the other two. Let me rephrase that, Numero-Uno didn't want to watch either of those two.  

Which kinda proves your point !


----------



## stuartpaul (15 Feb 2020)

Rorschach":jw40mwgd said:


> What Julian Knight isn't acknowledging though is that it is already behind a paywall, but one that people are forced to pay whether they want it or not. The technical challenge is making it fairer.


Whilst technically true it's not the sort of paywall Amazon or Netflix use is it? Internet/streaming services seems to be easier to put behind such a wall but 'free to air' is I would suggest, almost impossible to control without additional hardware (if it becomes encrypted then there has to be a way of 'uncrypting', - my word for the day).

I wonder how long you could last with a TV but without a licence before being rumbled? No idea because I've never tried!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (15 Feb 2020)

Is the BBC biased? Make your own mind up. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

I wrote more, but deleted it in a self-censorship moment of lucidity.


----------



## Rorschach (15 Feb 2020)

stuartpaul":1ibazh3q said:


> I wonder how long you could last with a TV but without a licence before being rumbled? No idea because I've never tried!



Quite easily if you are savvy.

Declare you don't require one, refuse to allow access if they do visit, make sure it can't be seen through a window. Job done.

We declare every 2 years, they never inspect. There is nothing to see even if they did visit, but then again they wouldn't get through the door anyway.


----------



## AES (16 Feb 2020)

Did you read that link "Tn"? I didn't read it completely but did "scan it thoroughly", and guess what, yup the BBC IS biased - and according to that link, biased in EVERY conceivable direction too, and all at once!

But IMO, you're biased too "Tn", and so am I! And so IMO is every reader of this thread, every member of this Forum, and everyone in the world!

We all inherited certain characteristics during our gestation, gained and modified ideas and bias from our parents and the environment in which we were brought up, and further modified and gained other bias and ideas as we developed and grew up, experiencing "something different" to our former norms Whether political (in both the small "p" and big "P" sense) and/or the "trillions" of other "likes and dislikes and - even - prejudices" we ALL exhibit. 

Everyone's been doing that since the start of mankind, will continue to do it, and slowly but surely we've been - hopefully - improving generally, otherwise mankind would still be back in the stone age.

So the fact that the Beeb is biased in one way or the other (in all ways at once according to that Wiki link) is no surprise to me - it is staffed by human beings after all!

BUT, IMO, the Beeb does try very hard to be even-handed - sometimes falling over backwards to a ridiculous extent to try and achieve that - and the Beeb undoubtedly does have other failings and makes other mistakes too - as said, "they're only human" ;-) .

Nevertheless, IMO the Beeb generally does a pretty good job, and although I watch/hear their news with a pinch of salt, it's nothing to the large shovel full of salt I normally use when reading the same stuff in the papers!

AND it remains a fact that throughout the world, the BBC is widely admired, AND is blocked in a lot of countries which are not "free" in the way you and I are used to. That should tell us more than a little something about the Beeb.

But how it should be funded and operated into the future I have no idea, but it's clear that in the light of the present widespread discontent, some change/s is overdue. Good luck with that!


----------



## RogerS (16 Feb 2020)

RogerS":39bxd1ic said:


> ColeyS1":39bxd1ic said:
> 
> 
> > Say if you want to watch the other channels but not pay through the teeth for the bbc content ?
> ...



As I thought, you can stream live ITV and Channel 4 but not Channel 5 ...although some might say that's a Godsend. So there's your answer. The BBC can offer a two-tier system. Those who don't mind paying a licence can watch it off-air. Those who want to watch selected programmes can pay for it on subscription and stream it. Of course, you won't be able to watch all those shopping channels as they're off-air AFAIK.


----------



## RogerS (17 Feb 2020)

There's another very good reason for the licence fee to continue and that is the impact that the BBC has on creating/performing/educating/promoting classical music in this country. All their orchestras. The BBC Proms - the world's largest classical music event. All that would go as I can't see how it would be funded.


----------



## AES (18 Feb 2020)

+1 RogerS, (but you've forgotten their excellent choirs).


----------



## RogerS (18 Feb 2020)

AES":vlhf7waz said:


> +1 RogerS, (but you've forgotten their excellent choirs).



And their New Generation Artist programme.

Their commissioning of new works.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Feb 2020)

All of which are very good - but is that what the BBC is actually for?


----------



## RogerS (18 Feb 2020)

phil.p":2jy7r9ni said:


> All of which are very good - but is that what the BBC is actually for?



Yes ! It's in their Charter.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Feb 2020)

The temptation to read that I've always found easy to resist.


----------



## stuartpaul (23 Feb 2020)

I stumbled on this and thought it summed up some of the arguments rather well!

Caution, - it is Jonathan Pie so contains bad language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imYebujz5uY


----------



## rafezetter (17 Mar 2020)

thetyreman":1kf3a3hg said:


> the most recent doctor who is the perfect example of trying to please everybody, whilst pleasing nobody at the same time, it's for me the worst series they've ever created, and not because the doctor is female, it's the cast, the PC ness of it and the poor quality writing. The series before it with capaldi was one of the best so it's a real let down in my opinion.




I thought you were writing about some new medical doctor series, lol, it wasn't until you mentioned Capaldi that I understood what you were writing about; punctuation and proper use of capitals is everything .

But I do agree she's not great, bring back the first guy in the revival, Christopher Ecclestone - I thought he did "angsty, last of my species, seen it all and it's still rubbish" very well.


----------



## rafezetter (17 Mar 2020)

AndyT":nanz34kq said:


> Quick practical question.
> 
> Remember that all the BBC's output is available, unmetered, with no subscriber ID, via a transmission tower and an aerial. ( Along with the rest of the Freeview channels.)
> [snip]
> ...



Snipped for salient points - I have looked and to watch something from the BBC on catchup via my Virgin Box I have to "sign in" to an account.

Never tried, but if it asked me for a licence fee issue number or some other identifier that I have one - that wouldn't suprise me, and if not - surely that would be the way to go right? Everyones utilities accounts are individually referenced, why not the BBC?

Most TV's are so smart now they can store that sort of info on the first registry so you just go straight to it next time.

All the technology is already employed in most other business that deal with the general public, such that people trying to access a duplicated account is rare.

TBH I think they are running out of excuses as to why this sytem is still used.

(I thought it was Whovian to denote a fan and abrogation - what a great word! )


----------



## AndyT (17 Mar 2020)

You've missed my point.
I wasn't talking about streaming, but broadcasting. Electromagnetic waves, sent out from a transmitter, picked up by many tuners, all getting the same signal at the same time. Even smart TVs still include tuners.


----------

