British T.V Licenses.

[Collegeguy]

If you don't watch T.V you don't have to pay.

I hope one day you can just pick if you wish to watch the BBC or not.
I would still pay it even if that option was available.

Then it would be cheaper to just use netflix since that has a smaller fee (if only conversion), and I see those shows on there like doctor who, ect + no advertisements.

Also, that's probably the reason why people complain that there is a U.K. version that doesn't get the same content, but as far as I know, it isn't illegal to fake your location and get the U.S. version.

[Lagwin]

I'm a UK resident and i don't have a TV licence...mainly because there is only 2 or 3 programs on over the year that i would watch them being the F1(half of which i can't view because of the sharing with sky) top gear and possibly one of their wild life programs the rest is utter pish.

For those in the UK that don't want to pay their licence go here

The relevant part being at the top. To quote "The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD."

For myself i can watch what i watch on the catch up service and the rest is games or dvd's.

[Xera]

Is there any choice to pay for this or not? Even if you don't have a television?

There is a choice. You can legally own and use a television in the UK without paying the licence fee BUT you must not watch/record ANY television broadcasts at the time they are aired. You CAN and I find this a strange little quirk, watch all BBC content legally using the BBC's iPlayer (on demand catch-up) service (or any other on demand catch-up service) after a program has aired.

The TV Licensing organisation have been known to lie and intimidate people, especially older people, into paying this. A favourite line at the moment is to ask if there's a computer in the household, or if they have a smartphone and try to assert that a licence must be bought if such a device is in use. As this is a govt mandated organisation, this behaviour is absolutely abhorrent and present as a reason to ditch the whole set up.

For a bit I didn't pay it but bought one last summer as I wanted to watch some (somewhat biased) political programming live and would also want to for the next couple of years.

As for their unbiased news.....

---------- Post added 2012-12-07 at 11:07 AM ----------

You can but still have to have someone come round and check to make sure your not using it.

They can come round but you are under no obligation to allow them access to your property. They may claim that they will get the police or a warrant etc but they themselves are under obligation to provide evidence of wrongdoing for any of that to work. If they continue with this behaviour, then that could and would be considered harassment and they could find themselves liable to prosecution in criminal and civil court.
It's great when you educate yourself against these types of people - nonsense about them just doing their jobs doesn't cut the mustard. The SS were just doing their jobs too.

[Lagwin]

You can but still have to have someone come round and check to make sure your not using it.

I buy my Dr Who on dvd after its been shown.

Well so far i've had no one at my door from them and thats been over three months since i stopped.
You should go onto their site and notify them if you choose to stop paying and the response you get is the might come and check but other than that they wont bother you with letter for a few years.

---------- Post added 2012-12-07 at 11:16 AM ----------

They can come round but you are under no obligation to allow them access to your property. They may claim that they will get the police or a warrant etc but they themselves are under obligation to provide evidence of wrongdoing for any of that to work.

True but they do have detection equipment that works and if they suspect you they can gather any evidence they might need to get a warrant

[Dyra]

I'm a UK resident and i don't have a TV licence...mainly because there is only 2 or 3 programs on over the year that i would watch them being the F1(half of which i can't view because of the sharing with sky) top gear and possibly one of their wild life programs the rest is utter pish.

For those in the UK that don't want to pay their licence go here

The relevant part being at the top. To quote "The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD."

Actually the catch up services do technically need a TV license since these services can (and do) stream live TV. It's now pretty much a case of you don't need a TV license if you're just using the TV for games and DVDs.

I don't mind paying it. A single charge per household for some decent advert free TV and Radio to watch/listen to is worth it imo.

I do miss the BBC having all the rights to F1 coverage too though.

[Lagwin]

Actually the catch up services do technically need a TV license since these services can (and do) stream live TV. It's now pretty much a case of you don't need a TV license if you're just using the TV for games and DVDs.

I don't mind paying it. A single charge per household for some decent advert free TV and Radio to watch/listen to is worth it imo.

I do miss the BBC having all the rights to F1 coverage too though.

If it is live steaming then yes of course you do, they had done it on one of the F1 highlight shows and it conveniently comes up with a box reminding you that if you don't have a licence you shouldn't watch and gives you a yes/no question for it. other than that your good to go as catch up is generally only up after an hour or more after it airing.

Ohh and what is quoted there btw is a direct copy paste from their site.

[Deleted]

There is a choice. You can legally own and use a television in the UK without paying the licence fee BUT you must not watch/record ANY television broadcasts at the time they are aired. You CAN and I find this a strange little quirk, watch all BBC content legally using the BBC's iPlayer (on demand catch-up) service (or any other on demand catch-up service) after a program has aired.

The TV Licensing organisation have been known to lie and intimidate people, especially older people, into paying this. A favourite line at the moment is to ask if there's a computer in the household, or if they have a smartphone and try to assert that a licence must be bought if such a device is in use. As this is a govt mandated organisation, this behaviour is absolutely abhorrent and present as a reason to ditch the whole set up.

For a bit I didn't pay it but bought one last summer as I wanted to watch some (somewhat biased) political programming live and would also want to for the next couple of years.

As for their unbiased news.....

---------- Post added 2012-12-07 at 11:07 AM ----------



They can come round but you are under no obligation to allow them access to your property. They may claim that they will get the police or a warrant etc but they themselves are under obligation to provide evidence of wrongdoing for any of that to work. If they continue with this behaviour, then that could and would be considered harassment and they could find themselves liable to prosecution in criminal and civil court.
It's great when you educate yourself against these types of people - nonsense about them just doing their jobs doesn't cut the mustard. The SS were just doing their jobs too.

It only took until the second page for someone to compare the BBC to the Nazi's. I am impressed and disappointed all at the same time...

With regards to the collections team being aggressive, please tell me a company that uses polite, non-intrusive, understanding collection teams to pull in unpaid monies. Stating the BBC are using intimidation to get OAP's or other vunerable groups to pay when they do not need is slanderous at best without reliable sources. I am not saying the BBC do not do this, however I have not seen any evidence to show me they are other than "I heard from someone...." Knowing your rights with regards to your property and balifs etc are very important, and I would recomend all people in charge of a home getting familiar with this (so kids, you dont need to bother with this yet).

To Collegeguy - I understand your opinion on the license fee, but you keep stating one of the reasons you wouldnt pay is down to Netflix showing the programmes you like to watch for a smaller fee. This is the part I do not understand, as without the license fee there would be ZERO BBC programs on Netflix for you to watch, as the BBC would not exist?

[BloodyAngel12]

Im just annoyed at how much they pay the top tier stars and yet wont publish a break down on how the money is spent.

[Xera]

It only took until the second page for someone to compare the BBC to the Nazi's. I am impressed and disappointed all at the same time...

With regards to the collections team being aggressive, please tell me a company that uses polite, non-intrusive, understanding collection teams to pull in unpaid monies. Stating the BBC are using intimidation to get OAP's or other vunerable groups to pay when they do not need is slanderous at best without reliable sources. I am not saying the BBC do not do this, however I have not seen any evidence to show me they are other than "I heard from someone...." Knowing your rights with regards to your property and balifs etc are very important, and I would recomend all people in charge of a home getting familiar with this (so kids, you dont need to bother with this yet).

To Collegeguy - I understand your opinion on the license fee, but you keep stating one of the reasons you wouldnt pay is down to Netflix showing the programmes you like to watch for a smaller fee. This is the part I do not understand, as without the license fee there would be ZERO BBC programs on Netflix for you to watch, as the BBC would not exist if there was no license fee?

I didn't compare the BBC to the Nazis. TV Licensing and the BBC are two separate organisations, although without one the other would not exist. I implied that the "excuse" of them just doing their jobs is not sufficient to justify their behaviour or actions.

I said they intimidate people and have been witness to this behaviour personally. My Nana (shortly before she became an exempt OAP 75+) was called repeatedly and threatened with prosecution. Thankfully I was there at the time of one of these calls and put a stop to it. Oh yeah, she did actually have a licence. I know this as I had purchased it for her myself.

TV licensing isn't just any standard company, they are effectively an arm of the government and should behave in a manner befitting a civilised democracy.

Just a side note, it would be considered libel, not slander if I hadn't been witness or had no proof.

[Deleted]

The way BBC (and YLE over here) operate worked back in the days, from 50's to maybe 90's before the internet became common and thus provided readily available credible news from a whole lot of sources. For current times it is way too outdated of a system and I don't wonder at all why people are refusing to pay. That being said, BBC does amazing work, whereas our YLE is mostly pure rubbish.

Finland thanks you for Black Adder, Young Ones and a whole lot of other brilliant gems.

[Deleted]

I didn't compare the BBC to the Nazis. TV Licensing and the BBC are two separate organisations, although without one the other would not exist. I implied that the "excuse" of them just doing their jobs is not sufficient to justify their behaviour or actions.

I said they intimidate people and have been witness to this behaviour personally. My Nana (shortly before she became an exempt OAP 75+) was called repeatedly and threatened with prosecution. Thankfully I was there at the time of one of these calls and put a stop to it. Oh yeah, she did actually have a licence. I know this as I had purchased it for her myself.

TV licensing isn't just any standard company, they are effectively an arm of the government and should behave in a manner befitting a civilised democracy.

Just a side note, it would be considered libel, not slander if I hadn't been witness or had no proof.

I cannot argue with any of your points there! Please note I was not defending the TV License groups methods of collections, just stating from my experience all companies collections departments use a form of bullying / intimidation and what you said did come across as fear mongering of the worst kind (dare I say, almost Daily Mail esq!). If you have experienced this yourself, then you should discuss this with the Citizens Advice Bureau or at the very least make a formal complaint to them in writting. I help care for my 92 year old Grandma, and if I found anyone attempting to essentially steal money from her there would be hell to pay.

[Deleted]

Actually the catch up services do technically need a TV license since these services can (and do) stream live TV.

Yes, but they would have to prove that you were watching live. The BBC iPlayer has a handy "restart this programme" feature, which starts the show from the beginning. If you were to wait five minutes, click it, and watch the show almost live you wouldn't be breaking the law.

Collegeguy - I understand your opinion on the license fee, but you keep stating one of the reasons you wouldnt pay is down to Netflix showing the programmes you like to watch for a smaller fee. This is the part I do not understand, as without the license fee there would be ZERO BBC programs on Netflix for you to watch, as the BBC would not exist?

That's not strictly true. BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial arm makes millions in profit every year from selling TV rights abroad. Top Gear alone makes a staggering amount. If the BBC were to limit itself to just its news services, then work as a production company making Top Gear, Doctor Who etc they could easily balance the books.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...d-profits.html

[Xera]

I cannot argue with any of your points there! Please note I was not defending the TV License groups methods of collections, just stating from my experience all companies collections departments use a form of bullying / intimidation and what you said did come across as fear mongering of the worst kind (dare I say, almost Daily Mail esq!). If you have experienced this yourself, then you should discuss this with the Citizens Advice Bureau or at the very least make a formal complaint to them in writting. I help care for my 92 year old Grandma, and if I found anyone attempting to essentially steal money from her there would be hell to pay.

Wow! That's the first time I've ever been compared to the Daily Mail. A paper which I regard as the worst type of press but will defend their right to exist as best I can despite how distasteful they can be - I do however LOVE the comments on their articles, they are a sight to behold!

You may have taken what I wrote as "fear mongering" but that's totally on you I'm afraid to say. Using the accepted understanding of the words, I cannot be accused of that unless you accept that I was trying to influence other peoples opinion negatively rather than to make others aware that this behaviour takes place and that they should make themselves aware of their liabilities and rights under the law. Again, this would be subject to an individuals interpretations.

You can be assured that I had already taken the necessary steps at the time regarding redress and my Nana did receive an apology. The older generation were there for us, we should return the favour where possible.

[Collegeguy]

To Collegeguy - I understand your opinion on the license fee, but you keep stating one of the reasons you wouldnt pay is down to Netflix showing the programmes you like to watch for a smaller fee. This is the part I do not understand, as without the license fee there would be ZERO BBC programs on Netflix for you to watch, as the BBC would not exist?

I thought it was kind of clear. The question at hand was introducing it to the United States. The United States already gets BBC through other means like youtube and netflix. Not introducing it to the U.S. for pay would mean that it still exist because people are paying in the U.K. for the tax. It also means that people in the U.S. still get it without paying for the license.

The question wasn't if the fee shouldn't be paid at all. It was only if it were introduced to the U.S., and I said that wouldn't bode well.

[Themius]

Americans wouldn't want to pay this tax. They freak out about mention of tax dollars going to healthcare.

[Xera]

Yes, but they would have to prove that you were watching live. The BBC iPlayer has a handy "restart this programme" feature, which starts the show from the beginning. If you were to wait five minutes, click it, and watch the show almost live you wouldn't be breaking the law.

If you did this, I'm afraid you would find yourself falling foul of the law. It covers the broadcast for the entirety of the time it is being broadcast. To remain compliant with the legislation, you would need to begin watching the program AFTER the final credit screen of said program had been broadcast by at least one method.
Unless there has been recent changes to the relevant legislation that I'm not aware of.

Although you are correct in writing that they have to prove that you are watching currently broadcasting programs.

[kingpinuk880]

Only problem i have with the license is we have no control at all for how it is spent. i will go out on a limb and say the vast majority is spent on high wages for tv presenters and fat cats who do bugger all. We also have no control for what programmes are commissioned, but I know if I had could control the budget, I would blow it all on sports and science documentaries. Which I’m sure would displease a large number of people. Basically, you have to bend over and take it and hope for the best! But on the whole it is worth having...just. Just wish it wasn’t controlled by left wing pussies. With it been such a politically correct organisation, it can be very dull, wish it had more balls and bite to it.

[Deleted]

Wow! That's the first time I've ever been compared to the Daily Mail. A paper which I regard as the worst type of press but will defend their right to exist as best I can despite how distasteful they can be - I do however LOVE the comments on their articles, they are a sight to behold!

You may have taken what I wrote as "fear mongering" but that's totally on you I'm afraid to say. Using the accepted understanding of the words, I cannot be accused of that unless you accept that I was trying to influence other peoples opinion negatively rather than to make others aware that this behaviour takes place and that they should make themselves aware of their liabilities and rights under the law. Again, this would be subject to an individuals interpretations.

You can be assured that I had already taken the necessary steps at the time regarding redress and my Nana did receive an apology. The older generation were there for us, we should return the favour where possible.

The Daily Mail remark was a joke, apologies if it did not come across as such! I did also state I was unable to argue with any of your points, I guess you missed that part?

Yes, but they would have to prove that you were watching live. The BBC iPlayer has a handy "restart this programme" feature, which starts the show from the beginning. If you were to wait five minutes, click it, and watch the show almost live you wouldn't be breaking the law.



That's not strictly true. BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial arm makes millions in profit every year from selling TV rights abroad. Top Gear alone makes a staggering amount. If the BBC were to limit itself to just its news services, then work as a production company making Top Gear, Doctor Who etc they could easily balance the books.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...d-profits.html

I agree that the TV License needs to be brought up to date with the technological age we now live in. As someone else stated earlier in the thread, the system worked fine before Internet use became the norm (up until middle to late 1990's) however I do not think we should hold our breath on it changing any time soon as it is (again, said earlier in this thread) essentially an extension of the government.

[Deleted]

The BBC is a huge waste of money for me, I may watch 2-3 things a week on it at most, certainly not worth the high cost.

[DEATHETERNAL]

No. I don't want nationally funded health care or news (or entertainment in BBC's case as well).