This is a bit of a rant, and a bit of help required

I need to buy a new TV. My TV is mainly used for Xbox, and I dont really watch a lot of terrestial TV (what with the reality drivvle that passes for TV these days), i tend to watch movies when i get the chance, although there are a couple of programs i try to keep up with, but its more often i watch them on catch up websites anyway.

now with the xbox being what it is, and membership of websites like love film, net flicks etc, do i really to pay need a TV licence?

In terms of the new TV, i could just as easily buy a large monitor rather than a TV and this would probably suit its purpose better anyway.

Any thoughts?

(Just for clarification, we do currenlty pay for a TV licence, its just a theoretical question, and ive not researched any interweb/official TV licencing yet)

Ninja

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

You don't need the license *only* if you never watch anything live, whether on a TV receiver or a computer via a network.

Just to confirm what Mr Barnacle says, an ex-colleague of mine investigated this in great detail and successfully applied *not* to have a TV licence.

The only time he finds it a bind is when the F1 is on as he has to try and avoid the result before he can watch it on BBC iPlayer (which does not require a licence).

Gosh that could be me! I am never home to watch anything its always on catchup!

Save £150 a year

I think i could live with that (i already practically do).



I think this is the only time i would find it binding too but then with most the coverage being on the sky F1 channel anyway (which i dont have) If i really want to watch it live i just watch it down the pub/round a friends (obviously i'll supply a few beers for the convenience )

does that apply to smart TVs too? after all they are interent based and not neccassarily live coverage broadcasts

Ninja

I think you would have to demonstrate that you don't have the *capability* to watch live, which could be tricky with t'interwebs. But a monitor rather than a TV, and no PVR, would certainly help.

And, by all accounts, get to deal with an endless stream of letters accusing you of watching TV without a licence and any number of people turning up at your door to make sure you're not sat in your pants watching Deal or no deal

The £150 a year is worth it for Eurovision alone

Having said that, some of the programs on BBC4 recently have been well worth the fee.

<Storms in waving a gun and yelling, "Take this thread to Cuba!">

Did you watch the documentary about the North face of the Eiger this week?

I know it was a repeat, but it was just such a good programme that I had to watch the whole thing again.

A couple I know honestly do not have a TV in the house, Tv has never been a part of there life.
The letters they get to an extent are down right threatening/intimidating, if you want an easy life not paying your tv licence isnt the way to go.

Yes, cracking program as too was the John Cooper Clarke programme last night. Then there was also the Cobra Ferarri wars programme a day of two ago.

In fact, for me, it is rapidly becoming the Radio 4 with pictures

The Eiger programme was excellent - there are some very good documentaries on BBC4 (most of which turn up sooner or later on BBC2).

Whilst I know not everyone listens to BBC radio it has to be remembered that the TV licence funds that too. There is enough on BBC for me to watch that I don't mind paying for the licence, F1 especially so frustrated this year not to get all races live (I don't watch enough to warrant paying for Sky for their coverage) but it amazes me when there are debates on BBC radio about the licence fee that people ring in saying they never watch BBC so why should they pay. Why should they listen if they don't pay!?

Yes, my friend had that on a property she had no TV in and was not even staying there a few years ago.

She flipped out after the 5th or 6th visit in a short period. When said inspector arrived on the door asking if she 'needed help buying a license' she invited him in and promptly closed the door and insisted he searched the house top to bottom before she would release him

You wanna try canceling a license.

It took numerous emails until I finally just cancelled the direct debit.

The standard of email received back beggars belief. Each one with a tiny bit more information in spaced about 2 weeks apart.

Once I cancelled the direct debit they were quick enough to write to my home address and inform me I only had til July left of my current license and I should set up another direct debit immediately. I informed them in December that I no longer needed a license.

Worst customer service ever.

Be careful when ordering TV sets online as well as delivery addresses are passed on to TV licensing. I had no end of trouble with them sending letters to me at work, if fact they are probably still sending them as we moved offices a while back.

This is by legislation whenever a new TV is purchased.

With out doubt I believe the bbc offers a very good service. It provided a wide range of programs and some very high quality documenters as well as a Radio service.

I have three questions

1) Do we all believe it represents value for money?

2) Do we believe the method in which it collects its funding revenue is fair?
And finally

3)Do we believe the organisation could still exist and maintain its quality if the revenue collection system were to become opt in
instead of having to opt out?

1) Is a hard one for me, I believe its a good service but not value for money
2) Not at all, There is no reason why a card system could not be put in place and people should be able to opt in
3) No, the revenue would tail off dramaticly

That above is my opinion, love to here yours?

Yes I know. Its a problem if the delivery address isnt licensed as they send letters and continue to do so even after being told the situation as per their guidlines. they are a shower of shite.

Sam,

To answer your questions.

1. Yes, it's good value. A year of licence fee is *way* less than 6 months of Sky, but the quality and range of programmes is so much better it's unreal. Not everybody likes everything on the BBC, but that's its strength - because it's not trying to flog advertising space it doesn't have to produce lowest common denominator programmes.

2. How the licence fee is collected is nothing to do with the BBC, but I don't see why the same money couldn't be collected (and ring-fenced) as part of income tax. Less than 0.5p on the lower rate would bring in the same revenue, cost nothing additional to collect and get rid of the need for all of the administration surrounding collecting/enforcing the fee as it stands.

3. I think opt-out is a terrible idea. The BBC would have to fight for viewers, which would make it more like ITV (i.e. awful).

Some of the 'best' programmes have the smallest audience while some of the most popular programmes are - to me - appalling. On a programme-by-programme subscription, perhaps sixty or seventy percent of the BBC simply couldn't justify being made.

On the other hand, the fact that it doesn't have to sell soap means it can perform its official duty: to entertain and inform. Long may it stay.

And the license fee should be at least doubled or trebled - it will be paying my pension soon!

I'm going to have to disagree with you both, I just cannot believe that its fair for one to be forced to pay for service regardless of if its used or not used.
The opt in option would hurt funding but I believe the general population would be better off for it.

For most of us the cost of a licence fee is negligible but for some its simply an extra bill that could be dropped with in honestly relitivly little consequence to there lifestyle.

Doesn't the fact that it would likely claps if it wasn't so elegantly funded worry any one else but me?

Er, do you go to school? Do you have kids that go to school? Are you collecting a pension? When did the fire brigade, or the ambulance service, or the police last call?

Would you argue that you should not pay for them simply because you're not using them?

Like it or not you live in a country with a largely socialised tax system - where those who *can* subscribe to a central fund that covers those who for whatever reason *can't*... there seems little reason why the BBC should be excluded from that, at least in the light of history.

Whether anything at all should be taxed is another matter - but yes, the thought of the BBC collapsing worries me immensely.

Besides - consider commercial TV in all its tawdry glory. Whether you watch it or not, whether you have a TV or not, you're paying for it in that little bit extra on every product you buy, because that's how it's funded. If you're really lucky, you'll fall for Rupert's blandishments and pay *him* to sell *you* to the advertisers...

Neil, Schools, pensions, fire, ambulance, police, All needed for society to function. No problem with that at all. I suppose you could argue that to a degree a media outlet is needed for society as well but not to the level of the bbc.

Perhaps a socialist means tested system or based on income tax which is tear based would be better. Again, Ill concede that the advertising budget that company's is generated by extra on top of a product. Its not that quite clear cut though as im not being forced to buy that product even though its on the TV.

Pay to watch sky and advents, yes, yes I do but the difference is that's my choice to do that

Im not against the BBC, Im against the way the government collect funding for it

Whether you buy an advertised product or not, your buying *something* that carries the budget as part of its price - with the possible exception of fresh dug carrots from Farmer Giles down the road...

Any society evolves mechanisms to distribute wealth, and over time it works out what it thinks provides a public good. You might not agree with that, but that's what polling stations are for.

Like it or not, there are certain non-essentials which do offer a public good. If not the BBC, then perhaps museums, art galleries, orchestras, beaches, wilderness areas, sites of special scientific interest? All things which the evidence suggests do not succeed if left to pay-as-you-go but which are highly valued by the citizenry.

If you're going to argue that it should come from general taxation rather than the licence fee, well, it does. The amount is negotiated each three years, and it's irrespective of the actual licence fee collected. The concept of governments raising funds by taxation of discretionary spending is well-established; this is no different in kind from petrol tax or window tax.

I'll say again: I think the BBC is ridiculously cheap for what you get - three quid a day? - and no-one has yet suggested a workable alternative which provides both funding sufficient to provide the bulk delights and the obscure, the quirky, the thoughtful, the comedic, the foreign language, the new, the old... and the reason for that is that when you really think about it, it's not those programmes being supported by the blockbusters - it's entirely the other way around. ITV demonstrates that you can get high-glitz talent shows, quiz shows, soaps, police procedurals, and the occasional costume drama and pay for them from advertising. But you don't often see much else there...