TV Licensing - where do I stand? Page 3

  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

  • rudedudejude 16 Apr 2013 00:35:58 2,186 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The rules haven't changed, they are always on the proviso that you receive and watch broadcast tv as it's being beamed.

    I've even heard stories of people have FV boxes for 'radio only' and have been fine. Unless they catch you watching broadcast tv you're pretty much clear. I haven't paid for a license for 2 years.

    Further info: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

    It's really quite interesting when you dig deep into it. Even if you get a visit you've no obligation to let anyone in as they don't hold the same legal right as police or even bailiffs.
  • mal 16 Apr 2013 00:38:16 22,605 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    A colour TV license for those aged under 74 who are not registered blind currently costs 145 quid 50

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • mal 16 Apr 2013 00:40:28 22,605 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    rudedudejude wrote:
    The rules haven't changed
    Fair enough. I should have said the implementation of the rules has changed.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • spamdangled 16 Apr 2013 00:46:21 27,356 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Jacksie66 wrote:
    How much is the tv license in the UK?
    Nowhere near anything amounting to what you think from the people that moan about it.

    Something slightly under 150 a year.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Cappy 16 Apr 2013 00:49:14 11,960 posts
    Seen 28 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I remember buying my first ever TV for use with a games console when I was a student, I was surprised when I was asked to supply my name and address, without even a second of hesitation I supplied the name and address of an utter ponce whom I knew already had a license.

    You would think that would keep the BBC off my back, but it didn't. They sent letters to every address I ever lived at whilst I was a student, they didn't even know who was living where, letters were addressed to Occupant 1st floor, 2nd floor etc. They were fishing, hoping to scare people into paying.

    They're still annoying me even now years later, with a constant need for assurance that I'm not watching TV, I keep a television for one reason, one reason only, playing console games.

    All in all it's the shady, unpalatable side of the BBC. Anybody resident in the UK without a license is treated as a potential license fee dodger if it comes to their attention. Innocent until proven guilty? Pish posh!

    Edited by Cappy at 00:53:31 16-04-2013
  • rudedudejude 16 Apr 2013 00:51:49 2,186 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It's quite funny and unfair in a way, what with TV License payers subsiding iPlayer for all those who don't pay their license (and those internationally who watch via proxy). I'm actually quite surprised you can even watch catch up without a license tbh.

    Even if you have the means, it's not enough for a case. They have to catch you in the act. Some local operators will push for court with less evidence, I've heard some flimsy cases been taken forward and rejected. Other inspectors will not do anything until they have solid proof. Most of them are commission paid, ex bailiffs or whatever (some good youtube videos) so their methods of vary.

    It's Capita that manage the license fee side, BBC keep themselves well clear of it all to keep their reputation 'clean'.

    Edited by rudedudejude at 00:53:08 16-04-2013

    Additional Guidance: http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/p/free-book.html

    Edited by rudedudejude at 00:54:52 16-04-2013
  • spamdangled 16 Apr 2013 00:56:22 27,356 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Dont the bbc have something in their charter outrighht preventing them from seeking to make a profit?Perhaps if the govt relaxed that a bit, the bbc could draw additional profit through things like syndication and not be so reliant on the license fee.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • mal 16 Apr 2013 01:53:55 22,605 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The BBC seem to have wangled it such that the vast majority of syndication money goes to BBC Worldwide, which is a for profit company. I dare say some of the money comes back, since as you say the TV License is a bargain for what you get for it, but BBC Worldwide strikes me as a way for them to make some serious money without being constrained by a pesky charter.

    Edit: Doing a bit of digging, I may be painting BBC Worldwide a bit too negatively. BBC Worldwide made 155m last year on a turnover of around a billion which doesn't strike me as wild profiteering (though I don't know if a 15% profit margin is good or bad these days). On the other hand, according to the BBC annual report for last year they made a mere 93 million in licensing to UK households. Like I say, I don't know the details of the relationship between the BBC its subsidiary, but even 10% of its income shuffled back to the parent company would give the BBC much more wiggle room. And presumably, BBC Worldwide pays the BBC for the programmes it relicenses, eating into its profits but pumping money onto the BBC. Details are probably in one of the annual reports I linked, but I can't be arsed to read past the introduction of either at this time of the morning.

    Edited by mal at 03:07:05 16-04-2013

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • One_Vurfed_Gwrx 16 Apr 2013 02:20:14 601 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    On the other side of the coin re iplayer, I pay my TV license for my home but I am currently living overseas (my family are still in UK thus the paying) but there is no official way for me to get iplayer or 4od type stuff without proxies. Thus I just have to wait a few days to use torrents. I always wondered what would happen if they just made the BBC subscription only and dropped the license. I imagine it would be a lot less money for the BBC...
  • mal 16 Apr 2013 03:07:45 22,605 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Interestingly that BBC annual report attributes a stonking 74 million of it's license fee jamboree to the digital switchover. As far as I noticed, it costs the same to receive a digital signal as it did an analogue one, so presumably that windfall came from people buying new digiboxes, thus submitting their addresses to the TV license folk, who'd presumably been missing them all these years. Seems a bit iffy, so anyone got any better idea what that 74 million means?

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • X201 16 Apr 2013 06:48:38 15,515 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Cappy wrote:

    All in all it's the shady, unpalatable side of the BBC.
    The Conservative Govt. offloaded the responsibility for licence collection to the BBC in 1991. They made the BBC responsible for collection, but the BBC have to hand the money to the Treasury, who then hand it back based on the finacial agreement they agree withh the BBC at charter renewal time.
  • X201 16 Apr 2013 06:55:01 15,515 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mal wrote:
    so anyone got any better idea what that 74 million means?
    Which report and what page?
  • mal 16 Apr 2013 07:33:45 22,605 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Ah, sorry. It's the Full Financial and Governance Statements 2011/12 (4.2MB), CFO's review, page F2 (aka 6) just after the contents.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • LetsGo 16 Apr 2013 08:01:19 5,242 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    EVERYONE should pay, I cannot believe that noone either;
    - Listens to BBC radio
    - Goes on the BBC news or sport website
    - Has watched something on iPlayer

    Until the beeb go fully ad funded, everyone should pay.
  • CosmicFuzz 16 Apr 2013 08:07:14 24,562 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    None of those things require a tv license.

    Everyone knows Jack Thompson - but how did he become the game-blaming activist he is today? Read Part One of my new mini-series!

  • elstoof 16 Apr 2013 08:09:22 7,504 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Those police pulling over and checking cars for unpaid vehicle excise duty eh, all in all it's the shady, unpalatable side of the DVLA if you ask me.
  • LetsGo 16 Apr 2013 08:10:16 5,242 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    None of those things require a tv license.
    I didn't say they did, but considering the license pays for them, I think people should still pay.
  • Deleted user 16 April 2013 08:14:33
    You want to charge all the people around the world that use them as well then?
  • CosmicFuzz 16 Apr 2013 08:16:46 24,562 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LetsGo wrote:
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    None of those things require a tv license.
    I didn't say they did, but considering the license pays for them, I think people should still pay.
    Why on earth should people pay for things they don't need to? If the BBC are so strapped for cash then they can make radio/iplayer/website license dependent. Until then people shouldn't give them money out of the kindness of their hearts - they're the ones who make the rules on what you need a license for. You're a mug if you pay more.

    Everyone knows Jack Thompson - but how did he become the game-blaming activist he is today? Read Part One of my new mini-series!

  • Shikasama 16 Apr 2013 08:22:35 6,869 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LetsGo wrote:
    EVERYONE should pay, I cannot believe that noone either;
    - Listens to BBC radio
    - Goes on the BBC news or sport website
    - Has watched something on iPlayer

    Until the beeb go fully ad funded, everyone should pay.
    And if those things didn't exist, or became non-tax funded, I wouldn't miss them.

    And the only one I actually 'use' is the BBC radio because it is on in the car on the way to work. It could literally be any station and I wouldn't give a flying fuck.
  • Trowel 16 Apr 2013 08:33:19 17,795 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    You want to charge all the people around the world that use them as well then?
    The BBC site is subsidised by advertising for international users.
  • mal 16 Apr 2013 08:42:14 22,605 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Shikasama wrote:
    And the only one I actually 'use' is the BBC radio because it is on in the car on the way to work. It could literally be any station and I wouldn't give a flying fuck.
    If you literally don't give two hoots what station you're listening to, why not tune it to white noise instead?

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Shikasama 16 Apr 2013 08:48:56 6,869 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @mal Nick Grimshaw?
  • mal 16 Apr 2013 08:58:08 22,605 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    @Shikasama Search> Search>...fucking Search>

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • kalel 16 Apr 2013 08:59:25 87,910 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    None of those things require a tv license.
    iplayer requires a license to use the "watch live" function.
  • warlockuk 16 Apr 2013 09:44:30 19,178 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I once asked someone what the fee goes towards.
    Apparently a chunk of it goes to the government, then some of it goes on infrastructure (which is sub-let to other companies - so they gain revenue from that) and some of it goes into making tv shows. Those TV shows are then given by the non-profit BBC to a for-profit company; BBC Worldwide.

    So... isn't that money laundering?

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • CosmicFuzz 16 Apr 2013 09:56:25 24,562 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Why? There's nothing illegal about the money that they need to hide it.

    Everyone knows Jack Thompson - but how did he become the game-blaming activist he is today? Read Part One of my new mini-series!

  • TheSaint 16 Apr 2013 10:00:23 14,478 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I just want them to introduce a humble bundle style mechanism so that I can decide what my licence fee goes towards:

    Radio 4 - 80%
    BBC 1 - 2%
    BBC2 - 3%
    BBC Website - 5%
    BBC4 - 5%
    5Live - 5%
    Radio 1 - 0%
  • neems 16 Apr 2013 10:28:55 1,251 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The license fee does not go to the BBC, it is literally a license to use equipment that can receive television broadcasts. The money goes into the general tax fund, from which the BBC receive their funding. It may seem like a fine distinction, but it's an important one.

    More significant to those who haven't paid their fee; any court appointed fines incurred do not go to television licensing, they go into the court system. So despite what the friendly people on the phone may say, the odds of being fined a grand for a first offence are low.

    You will get a phone call though if you live at an address that has no current license, as they just assume that everybody in the country has a tv.

    /Used to work for TVL in Bristol.
  • localnotail 16 Apr 2013 10:56:42 23,093 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    40p a day.
    Far better than a paper.
    Just pay it, fuckers.

    Edited: to make crap haiku

    Edited by localnotail at 10:57:55 16-04-2013

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

Log in or register to reply