[Abyss]

Gorefest, on 25 March 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

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.

champ, on 25 March 2015 - 05:34 PM, said:

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!

I thought you were joking. I was going to call this a joke...

champ, on 25 March 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

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

It's NOT a joke. ...that's absurd.

Tho if i read that right, as long as you're not live streaming a show at the moment that it airs on cable, you're in the clear. Ie: Netflix on your computer wouldn't count.
I think.

Fuck. They might as well just call it a tax, charge everyone and stop chasing people. Would probably make more money that way.

[Illuyankas]

That is pretty much what I meant, yeah.

And on an aside fuck Clarkson, no one would care if a particularly popular McDonalds manager was fired after screaming at an employee for half an hour and then attacking him. However, the license fee increase from the lost Top Gear international showing funds is gonna hurt.

[Traveller]

At Uni, I kid you not, they wanted a fee from everyone in the house that had their own room, if it had a tv and a lock on the door.

Nobody ever paid though, we used to keep all the increasingly aggressive letters in a pile, and move somewhere else after a year anyway.

[Imperial Historian]

The presence of a device in your house is irrelevant you only have to pay if you watch something live or record it. So streaming the news would count, but watching a DVD or something on iPlayer wouldn't unless it was at the same time as it was in air.

[champ]

But then you have to prove that you don't watch live TV on it, which is pretty hard to do when your TV has a built in freeview box...

edit

Traveller, on 25 March 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:

At Uni, I kid you not, they wanted a fee from everyone in the house that had their own room, if it had a tv and a lock on the door.

Nobody ever paid though, we used to keep all the increasingly aggressive letters in a pile, and move somewhere else after a year anyway.

First year at uni, in the halls of residence. On our entiire floor only one person had a TV licence. We were alerted early that the inspectors were on their way around so everyone that had a TV and not a licence put their TV in this girls room, she had like 15 TV's stacked around her room and we all sat with our doors open when they came to inspect laughing away... they couldn't prove they were not hers!

We actually then proceeded to get a mass of extension cords, a load of beer and sat and enjoyed the football on 15 screens till we got warned we were causing a fire hazard and had to take it all down!

This post has been edited by champ: 25 March 2015 - 07:22 PM

[Imperial Historian]

I agree it is a bit of a hassle but I've done it, someone comes and checks you aren't secretly watching live tv but it's not that difficult. As long as your tv isn't connected to an aerial it's pretty straightforward.

[champ]

I was having this argument with my mate, he said they'll now use the argument that if you have an internet connection and computer/laptop etc it gives you the facility to stream live TV which is just a modern way of having an aerial and TV! Wankers!

[Messremb]

I'm not fond of another bill to pay but I have no issue with the license fee. None at all.

Because BBC do some seriously good stuff. Okay you get crap like Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing or whatever but look at the amount of documentaries, of factual shows. There's whole departments dedicated to these things - Natural History.

How many BBC shows are classics? What's your sense of humour for an easy one - Porridge? The Good Life? QI? Mock The Week? Black Adder? Vicar of Dibley? Yes Minister? 'Allo 'Allo - need I continue?

FreeSat is also a (joint) BBC venture.

As Amph says kids programming is hugely important too. You watch it on ITV etc and there'll be adverts for my little pony this and sugary food that every 5 minutes. When we have kids I'm blacklisting other channels when the kids are up. I'll also buy whatever recording/catchup device allows full advert skipping. The sheer volume of Schools shows the BBC puts out is also impressive - that's right, the school programming you forgot existed is still going strong every night.

What about iPlayer? For those of us that work in the evenings it's fantastic to be able to go to the website and just watch it. No registering, no fee, no pre-starting or part-way adverts, just click and enjoy.

As a mandated impartial service what problem do people possibly have with it? You can get news that reports the issues generally very impartially, have political shows that aren't trying to ram todays political agenda down your throat.

Sure you pay a fee. But quality isn't free.

[Gorefest]

Hear hear.

[Vengeance]

Gorefest, on 26 March 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

Hear hear.

Jolly good old boy. Anyone up for a cup of tea?



- sorry couldn't resist.

[Tiste Simeon]

I thought about scrapping the fee but as mentioned above its not worth the hassle. We probably watch just about enough to make it worthwhile. Also the website/app are brilliant so I'm quite happy that my money is helping those services.

[DeadHedge]

Notgoing to lie, but when i posted this i genuinely didn't expect this level ofresponse.

I accept everyone’s views and i think that there is definitely a possibilityfor reforming the fee and that it is now antiquated, maybe not scrappingaltogether but something that feels less 'you must pay if you want TV'.

I do agree that there has been some good quality programing, god i evenremember watching the education programming at school (im 27), however thequality of programming like with most channels has gone way down hill (fewexceptions obviously).

To be honest my objections isn't so much having to pay for the fee, but havingto pay the fee on top of also paying for a subscription service, this should becovered by said subscription and not feel like an 'add on'.

If you were to reform the BBC and the fee how would you do it? (okay i knowfirst thing would be sack everyone involved in the recent scandals, but otherthan that)

Again, i am blown away by the responses here and appreciate everyone’s input.

DH

[Tiste Simeon]

Speaking of scandals I saw something on Twitter that basically went along the lines of "Silly Jeremy Clarkson if only he had raped boys a few decades ago, the BBC would have just covered it up instead of firing him."

Also his only public response so far has been "leave Ois out of it none of this is his fault." Which is - while too little too late - is pretty cool after the amount of abuse he has been receiving from Clarkson fans...

Sorry for the tangents.

[Ukjent]

In Norway we got NRK which is the Norwegian equivalent of BBC, also funded on a TV-license. There are always some people who says that they never watch NRK and therefor should not have to pay for it. But they are a tiny minority. NRK got most of the watched shows on the telly, multiple radio channels, and the best news-site on the internet. I'm a student and I don't have the spare place for a TV, but I still watch their shows on the Internet which is free.
If you buy a TV and is not hook up to any receiver you can get an exception for the tax. So I really don't see any problem with the tax. NRK got no commercials, no idiotic pawn-shop shows, got good documentaries and the the winter sports coverage is superb.

[Solidsnape]

Illuyankas, on 25 March 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

That is pretty much what I meant, yeah.

And on an aside fuck Clarkson, no one would care if a particularly popular McDonalds manager was fired after screaming at an employee for half an hour and then attacking him. However, the license fee increase from the lost Top Gear international showing funds is gonna hurt.

Agree.
Clarkson is a firat class Bell End, this decision to rid the airwaves of him and his bullshit show means paying the licence fee will sit easier with me now.

I do resent paying the the fee to a certain extent, but in the same way I resent paying my council tax.
Yeah there's some shite being made too,
But all in all, I think, the material produced when the BBC gets it right, is without equal.
In comedy, drama, science and arts.
From Blackadder to Jools Holland. Man the list is endless.
Of course QI!!

Top gear slowly devolved into an overscripted, conceited and blatantly irrelevant piece of shit television that was the X factor of Automobile fanzine television.
Bring back Tiff.

[Egwene]

Cancelled my TV licence many years ago. I wasn't watching a great deal anyway and when the BBC sacked a presenter for what were clearly ageist and sexist reasons, I was pretty incensed gave up on it altogether. I thought, for the money, I can get myself an awful lot of books instead - hence amazon's global rise!

We do have a TV as we do watch DVDs occasionally, but our aerial is permanently disconnected and it never got adjusted to the latest digital re-set.


Just to be a bit clearer than the official site:
You only need to pay TV licence in the UK if you are receiving LIVE broadcast.
And in that case, it matters not whether it's TV, computer, phone or any other device.


Not only do TV licencing put this in a very roundabout way, they will actually give you false information straight to your face. In the beginning, I received some, let's say 'pushy' calls from them and one guy absolutely insisted that, because I had a computer, I needed a licence. I asked to be put through to a supervisor but this guy just kept telling me that 'he won't tell you any different'. I had to ask at least half a dozen times before eventually he did put me through. Of course, the supervisor told me no such thing as unlike the first bod, he knew the law on this point, or maybe just recognised that he was talking to someone who did.

For anyone in the same situation, there is a form you can fill in on the TV licencing site somewhere, to declare that you do not receive live TV. Since doing so, I think I have had only one more phone call on the topic but (touch wood) not had any hassle from them for a long time.


I actually think that the BBC have produced some outstanding stuff over the years. From 'The Blue Planet' and 'Horizon' to some of the great Jane Austen adaptations... my own problem was more with the overall integrity of the station. I am female and one day I'll be much older than I am now (hopefully). Hopefully also, by the time I get there, enough young people will have realised that being ageist (and sexist) will eventually come home to roost. Now is the time to make sure we do not have to put up with that type of nonsense when we are older ourselves. Maybe my letter to the BBC together with many others on similar issues have had a long-term impact because...well, the decision to get rid of Jeremy has almost restored my faith in the integrity of the BBC. After all, never mind the punch... any ordinary employee on assignment insulting a colleague at the top of their voice would find themselves out of the door quicker than they could say 'open it first, please'. He was great to watch but that absolutely, totally could not justify for him to get away with violence and abusive behaviour at work. I am hoping that those who signed the petition to keep him, did so thinking the allegations were false, not because they felt that keeping an entertaining show on TV was more important than people's safety at work. They ought to think themselves on the receiving end of such treatment at their own place of work...

[Abyss]

Mandatory: https://youtu.be/R1w85qMqIjs

[Coco with marshmallows]

personally I don't mind paying it.

Barely watch BBC (apart from Dr Who) but....

Have you seen US news channels?
Or watched satellite telly here in the UK?

Adverts out the ***, and it irritates me no end.

For all its (many) flaws, you'll always be able to find something that the BBC does right, regardless of your tastes.

for the soap fans, Eastenders (blech)
in sports terms the Olympics coverage was incredible (IMHO)
DR Who / Top Gear - just look in this thread and you see proponents of both (and antagonists of both for that matter)
David Attenborough programmes - enough said
kids tv without adverts

there is a little something for everyone in there.

PLUS - and this is a big point - Murdoch HATES the BBC with a glorious passion, and for that alone i'll happily chuck my £120 a year into the pot solely to irritate that devious sh**bag

[stone monkey]

I happily pay my licence fee, despite not watching all that much tv. Admittedly when I do watch, it's primarily the Beeb. There's a bunch of reasons for this, some less serious than others:

The BBC gives Sir David Attenborough a place to do his thing, and by extension, the Natural History Unit. In the main this is because it's a public service broadcaster, it literally has to do things that, while not necessarily being popular, contribute to the cultural life of the nation. For example, BBC Radio Four are doing a season on the life and works of Ursula Le Guin. These things matter, and the cultural life of the UK (and the world, I feel) would be poorer without it.

The fee also allows the BBC to take actual risks in what it shows (and what they play on the radio). They can innovate. This is truly necessary and commercial networks will not do it. The bottom line means they have to stick with what they know (or believe) will be popular, because they'll go out of business otherwise. Someone mentioned Orphan Black: BBC co production; and you're welcome...

BBC News... It's difficult to credit how impressed people from abroad are with the quality and reach and rigour of the BBC's news service, but they are... they've told me. Arguably the Beeb could make a killing if they allowed foreign subscriptions, and not just for the news either; it's been mooted recently, but nothing's come of it yet.

The BBC could not exist in the form it does, and do the things it does, were it solely at the mercy of commercial forces.

[Fid]

I seriously don't think we would get the likes of Radio 4 either - which is repeating Good Omens this week in memory of Sir Terry.