Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The BBC should move to a subscription model if they want to remain advert free.

 

[symyjym]

The BBC should move to a subscription model if they want to remain advert free.

On that basis Murdoch's Sky should be free then. At the moment you have to pay them by subscription and they still have adverts.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

The BBC should move to a subscription model if they want to remain advert free.

I broached this question once as it is a pretty good thing to consider in the debate.

If you were offered a chance to add a bbc package to your radio and TV service for £12 a month, would you?

I would reckon it would be 50/50 personally I really don't mind adverts as I have a really bad attention span, having a break every 15 mins or so allows me to run to the loo, grab a drink etc and then actually be focused on what I am watching

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

On that basis Murdoch's Sky should be free then. At the moment you have to pay them by subscription and they still have adverts.

I guess the pint is though, you chose to have that and know what you are getting. It's a choice. With the TV license you have no power over it and have to pay it (I will leave the legal area well alone as I know way too little about it)

If I have a complaint about my sky I can call then and cancel, or, get a refund/month free. If I have a complaint about BBC i wouldn't imagine getting my TV license back

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

On that basis Murdoch's Sky should be free then. At the moment you have to pay them by subscription and they still have adverts.

There will come a tipping point where there are more viewers and listeners who watch live or catch up services through devices other than a TV rendering the TV licence model obsolete. The Government will have to make a decision in 2016 on how future funding of the BBC is made (licence , subscription or advert revenue) and whether or not to renew the BBC's royal charter in 2017.

 

[symyjym]

I guess the pint is though, you chose to have that and know what you are getting. It's a choice. With the TV license you have no power over it and have to pay it (I will leave the legal area well alone as I know way too little about it)

If I have a complaint about my sky I can call then and cancel, or, get a refund/month free. If I have a complaint about BBC i wouldn't imagine getting my TV license back

I don't have Sky, I was brought up watching the BBC so I appreciate it. It educated a nation and set the standard for quality documentaries and programming around the world. So for me I feel it is a small price to pay and something we should generally be proud of.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

I don't have Sky, I was brought up watching the BBC so I appreciate it. It educated a nation and set the standard for quality documentaries and programming around the world. So for me I feel it is a small price to pay and something we should generally be proud of.

Don't get me wrong, it's history is fantastic, and I am not complaining about the price just trying to see both sides.

In my view over the last few years the quality of television and radio has got a lot worse and the number of channels and stations is getting a bit crazy. The recent press of past broadcasters will not help this debate and I can see changes being seriously thought of even if not agreed and passed

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Fair play mate. If anyone is happy to pay it and gets a lot from it, then why not pay for it.

I'd pay for services I use and am more than happy to do so.

Just don't use the BBC, and need bullies to try and force me to pay for it, whilst lying and giving force information.

As I say, the videos above are quite amusing. The people filming are generally knobs in the way they conduct themselves, but they are correct!!

So you HONESTLY don't ever use a BBC channel or radio station ? I guess you didn't watch the England match last night ?

 

[looney]

It's not really that left wing, it tries to be politically neutral - but being a public funded organisation it is always going to appeal to staff who are supportive of that kind of thing.

As someone who is very left wing, I consider some of its journalism quite right wing at times, particularly when it comes to world news. That said, I do believe it is the most objective & neutral source of news in the WORLD bar none - certainly more than any newspapers. This makes it really important, particularly in foreign countries.

Some fair points here, it is consitantly centre-left and can be very patronising.

Its international state is matched these days by al jazeera, CNN and News International. where it could still lead is science/nature.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

what an odd rant, you seem to be arguing against a bunch of things i never said, while ignoring a quote from the legislation that backs the bit i did say.

oh, and despite what it may do to your blood pressure, how do you know there were only empty vans? it's quite possible to detect if you had a TV, you can detect the radiation given off by the CRT. no good on LCD and plasmas of course. technically one could also detect signal loss by way of a "shadow" behind a live aerial, but you'd need to be at roof level for that to work. for all the claims they did or didnt have real detector vans, either way, they had the means and the motivation.

Not ranting at all. Just pointing out everything you say, is incorrect.

I know they were empty vans, as I know someone in my family who drove one! You've fallen for the myth hook line and sinker. They had no way of detecting anything, other than a hole in the road if they drove over it!

You stated you need a TV licence if you own a TV.

and as all TV sets are capable of watching broadcast TV, you have to have a licence for one. or for that matter a VCR or DVR and also applies to TV tuner cards for PCs.

That's what you said. It's a direct quote. I'm not ranting, my blood pressure is fine, all I am merely pointing out is you are completely talking shit. So what am I meant to be arguing about that you never said? You said it. It's there!

Listen to yourself. You're talking about radiation coming of TVs!!!

You're quote from the legislation, and yes that's is merely stating the Meaning of “television receiver”. Nothing to do with the fact that you do not need a license to view your television, unless you are viewing or recording programmes as they are broadcast!!! THAT IS A FACT.

I've given you links to the TV Licensing site. I can't make it more plan for you.

 

[symyjym]

There will come a tipping point where there are more viewers and listeners who watch live or catch up services through devices other than a TV rendering the TV licence model obsolete. The Government will have to make a decision in 2016 on how future funding of the BBC is made (licence , subscription or advert revenue) and whether or not to renew the BBC's royal charter in 2017.

Yep we will be and are using other devices, but households will always own a TV and in the future it will be part TV and part computer so it will never become obsolete, just modernised.

If people don’t want to pay a TV license all they have to do is get rid of their TV and watch programs by other means.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

So you HONESTLY don't ever use a BBC channel or radio station ? I guess you didn't watch the England match last night ?

Yes I watched the England match. I was down the pub. Same as if I want to watch a game on Sky, I watch it in the pub. Does that mean I should pay towards the sky subscription as well?

It makes no difference if you watch BBC or ITV though. You still need a license if you watch it as it is being broadcast. I don't watch any TV as its being broadcast. I do watch catch up TV all the time including occasionaly BBC programmes. The Law doesn't require me to have a licence for that, despite what others may want you to believe.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

There will come a tipping point where there are more viewers and listeners who watch live or catch up services through devices other than a TV rendering the TV licence model obsolete. The Government will have to make a decision in 2016 on how future funding of the BBC is made (licence , subscription or advert revenue) and whether or not to renew the BBC's royal charter in 2017.

I will be amazed if there is a TV Licence after 2016

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

No different to putting a sticker on your car or sign on your property saying it is alarmed when it is not, or putting up fake surveillance cameras as a deterrent, or farmers putting up scarecrows to scare the birds and protect their crops for that matter.

If they had the technology to make a detector van work they would have done, but the next best thing was to make people believe it did. Clever really, but it never cheated anyone, just encouraged payment for a service we all used.

Well it is slightly different isn't it, in fact its very different. You put those things up to stop people breaking into your house and committing crime, or birds half inching the farmers corn

For years they led us to believe that if you have a TV you need a license. Just watch a few of those videos, they still try and claim this. Only if people look into it, do you uncover the truth that its only if you use that TV to watch programmes as they are broadcast, that you need a licence. They are still trying to trick people into paying for a license, when because of today's technology, more and more people generally do not need to buy a licence. Just look at their site, we still have to search for the truth on it.

 

[symyjym]

Don't get me wrong, it's history is fantastic, and I am not complaining about the price just trying to see both sides.

In my view over the last few years the quality of television and radio has got a lot worse and the number of channels and stations is getting a bit crazy. The recent press of past broadcasters will not help this debate and I can see changes being seriously thought of even if not agreed and passed

The worst scenario will be the Americanisation of TV, with cheap American imported programs where future generations are brought up speaking with an American accent

 

[happypig]

Two things :
1. Tv detector vans worked. This was proved by the fact that they would announce they were going to be in an area, then they drove round so people saw them and, as if by magic, loads of people bought licenses in that area. They scared people into buying licenses but they never had anything in them that could detect televisions.
2. TV Licensing (or their minions) would never be able to convince a magistrate to sign a warrant. I know this because I sign warrants.

 

[symyjym]

Well it is slightly different isn't it, in fact its very different. You put those things up to stop people breaking into your house and committing crime, or birds half inching the farmers corn

For years they led us to believe that if you have a TV you need a license. Just watch a few of those videos, they still try and claim this. Only if people look into it, do you uncover the truth that its only if you use that TV to watch programmes as they are broadcast, that you need a licence. They are still trying to trick people into paying for a license, when because of today's technology, more and more people generally do not need to buy a licence. Just look at their site, we still have to search for the truth on it.

Yep taking something for free

What is your interpretation of broadcast?

Anyway in regard to whether the TV detector vans worked or not, technically they did because they drove around in them, parked up and got out of the vehicle, went to the property and detected a TV by using their ears or seeing it on through the window. You don't need any state of the art tech to detect TV's when people can carry out that function.

 

[El Presidente]

Yes, but they could cut the channels and radio stations down a bit to keep the costs down.

Costs down? You object to paying 45p a day?

 

[El Presidente]

The worst scenario will be the Americanisation of TV, with cheap American imported programs where future generations are brought up speaking with an American accent

It's called Sky.

 

[beorhthelm]

Listen to yourself. You're talking about radiation coming of TVs!!!

go look it up. dont believe the harm side, thats nonsence of course. after all the light emitted is radiation, but theres a ton of frequencies leaking off the back of a CRT as they aren't shielded. its possible to detect the picture being watch on a suitably tuned equipment, though this is lab set up i dont if thats possible from a Leyland van.

You're quote from the legislation, and yes that's is merely stating the Meaning of “television receiver”. Nothing to do with the fact that you do not need a license to view your television, unless you are viewing or recording programmes as they are broadcast!!! THAT IS A FACT.

i already conceded long ago on the "owning a TV" point that my phrasing was poor, instead of making the mistake again i simply refered to the legislation. if you want to believe that it means a TV is only "television reciever" when you are viewing while tuned into Eastenders, knock yourslef out. we'll call this Tubby-McFat-Fuc's Cat, which has a ring to it. your link about watching iplayer is interesting but i was never discussing iplayer.