[DeadHedge]

For all the people in the UK this may make more sense however I'd like the inputfrom all around the globe.

In the UK we have 'Terrestrial TV' which consists of 5 channels, BBC 1, BBC 2,ITV (STV depending on region) Chanel 4 and Chanel 5. We also have the various subscriptionbased TV packages such as Satellite (sky), Cable (Virgin) and 'Freeview'

As you may be aware you have to pay a monthly subscription fee for SKY andVirgin which can start from £20 upwards, with Freeview you theoretically don'tpay anything unless it is an optional pay-per-view channel and is an extensionof the 'terrestrial' channels which were previously only available on Sky andVirgin (look online it will show the pants channels on it)

What we have on top of this is something called a 'TV licence' yes we arerequired by LAW to have a licence to own a TV and watch live broadcastprogrammes or programmes that have previously been broadcast on the channelsand you are watching using a 'catch-up' service.

This TV licence is approx. £120 a year and (here's the kicker) is used to fundour BBC channels (British Broadcasting Company) which quite frankly consist ofcrap baking shows, rubbish talent shows and period dramas (in a nutshellcomplete dross).

The only thing the BBC doesn't have that all the other channels have areadverts which means no interrupted movies (never any good ones and are rarelybroadcast) and they are effectively funded by UK taxpayers. What they also haveis a commercial arm which is then allowed to sell further TV rights and resultsin the company raising its own funds on top of the taxpayer funding.

To top it off the BBC hasn't had a good run of it lately (just look at the JimmySaville scandal) so they have shown that they are more concerned about profitsand their own 'stars' welfare than the public and people who actually fundthem.

Do you think that this is a fair system that you are forced to pay a licence towatch TV or do you believe that paying for a monthly subscription should be allthat you need?

Whatd oes the rest of the world do regarding this?

Discuss.

Hopefully this is in the best forum.

(sorry if this seems a random topic but due to current news events in the UK felt worth discussing)

This post has been edited by DeadHedge: 25 March 2015 - 03:48 PM

[QuickTidal]

Seeing as my favourite all time TV show is a part of that funding that comes from the license and the Charter (DOCTOR WHO), amongst another few shows on various BBC channels...I'd be upset if that ever ceased and you have my undying gratitude that you pay the fees that allow me to watch my shows overseas.

That said, with the BBC worldwide arm and other global versions having ratings bonanza and merchandise insanity...I can't see why they could not reduce the amount the average UKer pays per year for the license and still make the shows that people like.

So while it's a terribly antiquated system and you all deserve a better one...it may not happen. BUT the advent of digital, subscription, AND streaming...perhaps the Charter will need to change. The Queen renews it...what every 15 years or something? When is it up for renewal? Could there be talks to revise it taking into account overseas revenues?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 25 March 2015 - 03:49 PM

[D'iversify]

DeadHedge, on 25 March 2015 - 03:41 PM, said:

This TV licence is approx. £120 a year and (here's the kicker) is used to fundour BBC channels (British Broadcasting Company) which quite frankly consist ofcrap baking shows, rubbish talent shows and period dramas (in a nutshellcomplete dross).

I think the TV license is antiquated too, but I've also thought the BBC's best defence is by comparing it to its commercial-funded competitors. Put simply, I think Channel 4 is the best of them, but it's quite some distance behind and relies a lot on 'shock horror' and 'schlock horror' style shallow but attention grabbing shows and documentaries than is desirable (FilmFour is very good however). ITV I usually only tune into for sports and the occasional film - most of their output is also basically 'baking shows, rubbish talent shows and period dramas', though usually of an even more decrepit quality than the BBC's. Channel 5... the less said the better probably.

Also, the BBC has great science, natural history and history programming that is frankly unrivalled both on terrestrial and most of digital.

So basically, the license fee needs reform, but the BBC is in my view the best of British TV.

[Abyss]

To grossly simplify: In Canada the Cable Companies (broadcasters companies who own or licence many channels and who subscribers pay) pay license fees to the government to be broadcast in Canada. Canadian channels cost less to license than foreign channels, but foreign channels are generally better so more people are willing to subscribe to them. Broadcasters are required to broadcast a certain amount of Canadian content. Much of that is crap.


Canadians pay taxes and an infinitesimal part of that goes to the CRTC regulators who control what channels get licenses, among other things.

Taxes also fund the CBC, which is more or less the Canadian equivalent of the BBC. The gov has been slashing the amount of $ the CBC gets fairly ruthlessly lately.

Some Canadian channels and shows are subsidized by the gov as well, but overall it's a really small amount of $. Still, once in a while you get an ORPHAN BLACK.

[Maark Abbott]

I see no point to it. The only entertaining programme that the BBC produces (and has for some time) is Top Gear - everything else is drek (especially Dr Who). As the BBC is the only group of channels that uses any sort of license fee to generate revenue where others use adverts, I don't see why they can't just modernise with everyone else. It galls that it's a legal requirement to pay what is essentially a tax on channels I rarely watch.

[QuickTidal]

Maark, on 25 March 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

I don't see why they can't just modernise with everyone else. It galls that it's a legal requirement to pay what is essentially a tax on channels I rarely watch.

Doesn't the Charter stipulate that you get at least a say though? I thought it was a situation of "If we don't like this we can make our voices heard en masse, and if enough people say so, it goes?" Or does the BBC basically decide what to keep airing based off ratings?

[Maark Abbott]

QuickTidal, on 25 March 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

Maark, on 25 March 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

I don't see why they can't just modernise with everyone else. It galls that it's a legal requirement to pay what is essentially a tax on channels I rarely watch.

Doesn't the Charter stipulate that you get at least a say though? I thought it was a situation of "If we don't like this we can make our voices heard en masse, and if enough people say so, it goes?" Or does the BBC basically decide what to keep airing based off ratings?

Pretty much that last part. We can complain at them all we want, but they won't care.

[champ]

I basically pay £120 a year to watch Top Gear and Match of the Day and even then I don't watch it live - they get downloaded - I cannot remember the last time I watched live TV.

Licence fee pisses me off something rotten - the simple fact that I have a TV in my house means that I have to pay the fee - even if it isn't used to watch TV... because I have the capability to watch TV they presume I do - guilty till proven innocent...

[Gorefest]

I think it is important to have an independent media body, not driven by profit, that provides every person in the country with a balanced offering of politics, science, the arts, special interest shows and entertainment, and that provides a platform for minority interests to be heard. You may not like a lot of the output, but the alternative in my view is simply scary. We could be fed Fox News on a daily basis as our sole source of information. As a non-native UK resident, I feel that the Brits should really cherish the BBC as a bastion of sensibility in a shark-infested pool of common denominator media entertainment.

[Illuyankas]

Get your stinking privatising hands off my BBC

[Abyss]

champ, on 25 March 2015 - 04:36 PM, said:

I basically pay £120 a year to watch Top Gear and Match of the Day and even then I don't watch it live - they get downloaded - I cannot remember the last time I watched live TV.

Licence fee pisses me off something rotten - the simple fact that I have a TV in my house means that I have to pay the fee - even if it isn't used to watch TV... because I have the capability to watch TV they presume I do - guilty till proven innocent...

Out of curiosity, how does this work? Like, when you first bought a tv did they send your name and address to Her Majesty kind of thing?
If you got rid of your tv, would you not have to pay? Do the tv police come around and check?

[QuickTidal]

The Queen probably comes round knocking on your door.

"Hem hem. Please show me your television, or we shall have to call the guard."

[Nicodimas]

I am in Arizona.

I am down to Walking Dead, Shameless and Vikings...so I am canceling after my current Direct TV contract after it is over. I barely watch TV anymore.

[Gorefest]

Abyss, on 25 March 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, how does this work? Like, when you first bought a tv did they send your name and address to Her Majesty kind of thing?
If you got rid of your tv, would you not have to pay? Do the tv police come around and check?

Basically, yeah. They occasionally drive around in the area with a van equiped with detection equipment to see if there are any unregistered tv signals. With the emergence of internet tv, you have to wonder how valid it still is though.

[amphibian]

Gorefest, on 25 March 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:

I think it is important to have an independent media body, not driven by profit, that provides every person in the country with a balanced offering of politics, science, the arts, special interest shows and entertainment, and that provides a platform for minority interests to be heard. You may not like a lot of the output, but the alternative in my view is simply scary. We could be fed Fox News on a daily basis as our sole source of information. As a non-native UK resident, I feel that the Brits should really cherish the BBC as a bastion of sensibility in a shark-infested pool of common denominator media entertainment.

This is incredibly important.

The BBC is very much a public good - which is run by fallible people who do things like ignore pedophiles operating in the open for 25 years and so on.

I do think the TV fee is stupid. What happens if multiple TVs are in one house? What if the TV is for console gaming only?

However, if they shift it to a tax thing, I'd be ok with that. I'd be more than ok with PBS getting tax money instead of donation money here in the US.

Despite people here only watching Top Gear, soccer or whatever, the full range of what the BBC offers is important. Kids will watch kids shows (PBS usually has great ones on), adults can get news that isn't spun eleventy directions to hell, and the audience can fragment as it wishes regarding the cooking shows, the dramas (which are fairly popular) and the other parts.

As Illy sort of says, privatizing a public good is stupid. Most people fail to appreciate what a public good is and that there's other things available for the buying if they don't want to use that public good.

[champ]

Abyss, on 25 March 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

champ, on 25 March 2015 - 04:36 PM, said:

I basically pay £120 a year to watch Top Gear and Match of the Day and even then I don't watch it live - they get downloaded - I cannot remember the last time I watched live TV.

Licence fee pisses me off something rotten - the simple fact that I have a TV in my house means that I have to pay the fee - even if it isn't used to watch TV... because I have the capability to watch TV they presume I do - guilty till proven innocent...

Out of curiosity, how does this work? Like, when you first bought a tv did they send your name and address to Her Majesty kind of thing?
If you got rid of your tv, would you not have to pay? Do the tv police come around and check?

I've actually got a mate who works for them, they basically have a list of every address in the country that doesn't have a licence and they'll harass you by sending out minions until you prove to them that you do not have any devices in the house that can you view television on, which has recently been extended to laptops, computers and smart phones!

If you don't have a licence, after about 6 months you'll start getting a knock at your door everyday, some monkey turns up trying to scare you into letting them into your property - they have no right to enter till they get police order which eventually happens - then when in the property you have to prove you have no television receiving equipment! You can pretty much tell them to jog on till you get the police order!

This post has been edited by champ: 25 March 2015 - 05:36 PM

[Traveller]

I don't see why the BBC are able to charge for owning a tv. I would happily opt out of paying for BBC only channels if that's what I'm paying for - I don't see how they justify charging me for watching sky/amazon prime through my tv.

And they've just sacked Clarkson; that's a nose off to spite a face.

[QuickTidal]

Whoa, I didn't realize it was quite that strict. That's crazyness. I guess the intention is to force you to have the license just to keep them off your case. Though I'd be curious how they'd word it on the Charter to accommodate laptops and smartphones ect. under that command. I guess if you have any kind of screen, you're screwed?

If I lived in the UK, I think I'd be okay with the fee...but I'd be grumbly about just how high it is...otherwise I think I'd be fine with paying it.

[champ]

http://www.tvlicensi...if-you-need-one

On my phone so can't quote the relevant text but take a look

[Gnaw]

I'm sorry all y'all have to put up with all that.

But some of the best shows ever are made by the BBC and, since I don't have to pay the license, I like the status quo.


*ducks* *runs*