TV licence moan

NTL for us...750 K broadband, 100 channel cable, local talk unlimited plus international calls: 64 pounds a month...cable alone I think is around 35 or so pounds for 100 channels per month.

Here's the link:

http://www.home.ntl.com/icat/familypack

Ahhh.....living blissfully with no TV.  I gotta say, though, the letters we get from the TV licence company are hysterical- practically threatening us with massive fines and so on.  It almost reads like they can't imagine someone living w/o a TV. 

Can I bump this thread? I was going to start a new one but this one pretty much sums it up for me.

Ok. I understand their reasoning behind charging the fees. But why o why am I supposed to fund the BBC when I may or may not be interested in watching it? If its a matter of national pride (BBC) then shouldn't the govt be taking care of it instead of asking money in the form of fees?

I for one hate this concept to bits. I like BBC, but I wouldn't mind their website or tv having ads for revenue generation (they've already started advertising on BBC News website when accessed from outside UK I think) - just like all the other channels do. Not just that. For argument's sake, if one was to buy a TV just to watch DVD for example, you're still supposed to pay the licencing fees. Where's the sense in that??? Why o why does anyone have to pay to watch what's happening in the world. Am I not supposed to know what's happening in the world around me without having to pay for it? I'm not talking about the cable tv networks but why are the basic "free" networks not FREE??

Sorry, I get absolutely mad thinking about this. This is nothing but disguised robbery by the govt.

Ok. I understand their reasoning behind charging the fees. But why o why am I supposed to fund the BBC when I may or may not be interested in watching it? If its a matter of national pride (BBC) then shouldn't the govt be taking care of it instead of asking money in the form of fees?

The govt. do take care of it.  Even though they allow the BBC to collect the funds the money goes to government which then funds the BBC.  Every thing the government does is paid for by us in one form or another via direct or indirect taxation.  If there was no TV Licence then then money would still need to come from somewhere and would just be buried in some other tax - at least this way everything is above-board and transparent and people do have the option not to pay if they don't watch TV.  On a lot of these thread people often call it a "TV Tax" in what I suspect is an attempt to be snide but really that is exactly what it is.

Thanks for responding.

My gripe is that why is UK so special? Nowhere I've been to has this concept. I know I know, I'm in UK and things work differently in different countries. For eg in the US I don't remember paying for channels like ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS - at least that way one can choose to stay in touch w/the outside world w/out having to pay nothing but the cost of their tv.

Edited to add: And, for sure I don't have to pay to the govt or anyone if I decide to watch only DVDs on my tv in the US

Honestly, I'm not being snide - just trying to get my head around the fact of why is one supposed to pay to be informed in a first world country.

Because we have two tv channels and several radio stations which are non-commercial, and they supposedly rely on the fee from the TV licence to function.

The TV arms make money from programme sales around the world, but local radio would collapse without the fee.  Then again, the amount of money radio gets is shrinking yearly.

Vicky

My gripe is that why is UK so special? Nowhere I've been to has this concept. I know I know, I'm in UK and things work differently in different countries. For eg in the US I don't remember paying for channels like ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS - at least that way one can choose to stay in touch w/the outside world w/out having to pay nothing but the cost of their tv.

This is from wikipedia (whatever that's worth) but it would appear that more countries have a TV Licence than don't.  As to why the US went a different way?  The US national myth is "American Exceptionalism."

Edited to add: And, for sure I don't have to pay to the govt or anyone if I decide to watch only DVDs on my tv in the US

Same here, you only need to TV Licence to watch broadcast TV.  If you only watch DVDs then no need to buy a licence.

Honestly, I'm not being snide - just trying to get my head around the fact of why is one supposed to pay to be informed in a first world country.

Just because things are administered differently than at home doesn't make them backwards, most first world countries have some kind of TV licence.  If you have any kind of state funded content then taxes will need to be raised to pay for it.  It's a matter of taste but I like the fact it is above-board and I have the chance to opt out rather than it being buried in general taxation.

Same here, you only need to TV Licence to watch broadcast TV.  If you only watch DVDs then no need to buy a licence.

I have been told repeatedly that this isn't the case, but here is what the TVL licence says about it:

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.

However, please notify us in writing that this is the case. One of our Enforcement Officers may visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

Please write to us including your name, address and the reason you believe that you don't need a licence at:

TV Licensing
Bristol
BS98 1TL.

Presumably they want to make sure that you don't have connected receiving equipment, eg an aerial, which should be easy enough to prove!

Just because things are administered differently than at home doesn't make them backwards

Thanks for that, there are a lot of statements I've seen on this board that could have this tacked on as a reminder! I would add that the BBC makes some really great cultural and nature documentaries (Coast, Trawlermen, anything with David Attenborough), show loads of sport that would otherwise cost a fortune (rugby, football, the olympics, athletics; some individuals may not care about sports, but mostly they show events that are relevant to huge swathes of the population as well as some specialist things that would otherwise have no audience) and good costume dramas; frankly, I'm happy to pay my licence fee simply for the existence of the 1995 Pride and Prejudice! Licence fee money also pays for radio, digital programs and the website, provides for regional variation much more than the London-centric commercial stations do, and I for one love not having my viewing interrupted by annoying adverts ever 10 minutes!

I for one love not having my viewing interrupted by annoying adverts ever 10 minutes!

It's worth every penny in my eyes for that alone! 

Ok. I guess then I'm against licencing fees in general, regardless of any country (especially first world) that implements it. I just can't digest that one has to (mandatorily) pay to be informed. I personally know of two countries (India and the US) who have basic free networks.

I know you're just stating the facts, but my gripe goes a lot beyond than that - in principle I just don't see why one has to pay to be informed, even more so in a first world country. But from what I've noticed, licence fees seems to be quite acceptable as I haven't seen or heard of any protests against it - and that's where I get worked up!

Sorry, just needed to vent 

You don't have to pay to be informed...you don't have to have a tv.  The internet and radio will do.

Lots of people object to the licence fee, and would prefer that all channels were commercial so that we didn't have to pay.  But others think that it is good that we have some channels which can (theoretically) make quality programmes without having to worry about viewing figures.

Vicky

No need to apologise, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I think a lot of it boils down to what you are used to; it's odd to you because you come from a country without a TV Licence fee.  If you think about it and extend your principle then most taxes are equally as odd.  I mean I pay taxes for the privilege of going to work all day, owning a house, driving a car, buying food*...  At least if you don't want to pay you can unplug the TV aerial.

*I know a lot of food is zero rated for VAT but I like chocolate biscuits, OK?

I have to be unpatriotic and say I do not think the BBC provides value for money any more. The argument is that the licence fee allows them to be a more independent broadcaster than if they were beholden to the advertisers but instead they are beholden to the powers that be, I can't see the difference. Channel 4 produces some stunning documentaries and dramas funded through advertising. I wouldn't care if we had ads on the BBC if it meant free TV was actually free.

I have to agree with Britwife here. I grew up in Britain so you would think I'd have an accepting outlook on the TV licence, but I think it ought to have been abolished by now. I wouldn't care if the Beeb had to accept advertising just like the other stations, or even run some PBS-like pledge drive (and even PBS are allowing to come creeping in things that look VERY much like commercials to me....)

 I just think the British TV license is an outmoded, archaic, and ridiculous concept to demand, and aggressively demand, that everyone in the nation should have to account for the entertainment equipment in their homes. I don't care what other way they find, they should fund fom a different source, and drop it.

I agree it is outmoded now that we are able to watch broadcast TV anywhere at all...

However an American can deduct the fee as part of the foreign housing cost on form 2555 so after the tax break some (a few actually) US citizens in the UK end up paying less than a Brit...

For argument's sake, if one was to buy a TV just to watch DVD for example, you're still supposed to pay the licencing fees.

Except you're not. A TV licence is needed to watch or record BBC or any other network's TV broadcasts as they are transmitted.. A licence is not required simply to own a TV, or to use it with a VCR or DVD player or any other multimedia device to watch prerecorded material. You do not have to prove that you are not watching broadcasts.

How am I so sure? I worked for TV Licensing in Bristol for 10 years, first under the Post Office and then under Capita Business Services. The less said about the latter the better.

You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp