Sign in / up

back to article Anti-TV Licensing petition gets May date for Parliament debate

The BBC TV Licensing fee is set to be debated in Parliament in early May after a public petition passed the 100,000 signature mark. The petition calls for TV Licensing revenues to be deducted from "service providers" instead of being collected directly from households in the UK. At the time of writing it stands at 107,779 …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

            If it is so wonderful then people will surely choose to pay for it instead of charging those who dont use it

            Ok, I'll bite here

            If you live in some African countries, the BBC radio is the only non-dictatorship station you can hear, who is going to collect their subscriptions?

            During the wars (inc Iraq and Falklands, many people only knew what was happening due to the BBC services), are you prepared to collect the money in Mosul?

            The Open University is also a product of the BBC

            So stop thinking that Eastenders and TOWIE are the whole world and look around you

            So I take it your kids will never watch CBeebies or CBBC?

            0 0 Reply
            1. Zmodem
              Reply Icon

              Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

              ITN is better for war coverage, soldiers are all regular people, and ITN does the news on all their channels that watch so ITN get all the insider stuff and they did'nt carry on talking for 5 mintues about nothing much when the first tower started to fall on 9/11 before they realised

              0 3 Reply
        2. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

          "So essentially, since you don't pay for my HBO subscription, why should I pay for your BBC"

          If all you use is HBO you can avoid paying the licence fee - I don't mind!

          I also don't mind that some of my licence fee is spent on collaborative projects with HBO that I'll probably never watch - I hope you enjoy them.

          I have to say though if you've never watched Monty Python or Life on Earth or Trumpton or Fawlty Towers or Talking Heads or Bagpuss or The Day Today or House of Cards or Threads or Blackadder or Ivor The Engine or The Sky At Night or I Claudius or Arena or Horizon or Paddington Bear then you are really missing out.

          But I totally get why someone who never liked any BBC TV or Radio shows from their earliest years right through to adulthood would resent paying for the BBC just so that the majority can enjoy it and I can only apologise for all the subsidised entertainment I've had at your expense. I mean I've always thought that I'd pay 40p a day just for Test Match Special so to get all that other stuff on top and have you pay for it - well I'm overwhelmed with gratitude.

          I realise it's no financial recompense and that's obviously much more important than anything else but I hope that the knowledge that you've played your part in me having a better and happier life than I might otherwise have had does at least lift your spirits a tiny amount.

          Thank you. Thank you so much. I'll be sure to think of your selflessness and generousity when I am watching Fleabag later in the week.

          15 0 Reply
          1. Dave 15
            Reply Icon

            Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

            My son and daughter both watched trumpton (as I did). I had to buy the DVD in order for that to happen (you can't see it on the BBC now. This is NOT an excuse to charge me for the BBC. The BBC could have produced such programs and sold the dvd, subscription, pay per view option (perhaps even provide it pay per view online along with all the other content I can't get on dvd or youtube), and make money to produce new content.

            Other commercial setups can provide quality without the need for everyone to share in subsidising it. If I want a Jaguar I can go and pay for it (well at least in theory) or I could choose to buy a cheap alternative. The choice should be mine. What I should not have to do is buy a Jaguar so that I am allowed to buy a Nissan!

            2 1 Reply
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

              > " If I want a Jaguar I can go and pay for it (well at least in theory)"

              With the BBC you have the Jaguar of programming (and the Transit Van, the Hovercraft, the stretch limo, the Reliant Robin, the Jumbo Jet, and the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) because collectively we can make it happen.

              I understand the potential unfairness of people paying for something they simply never use but I'd have a lot more sympathy for that argument if the product was actually bad.

              It just seems like people are willfully seeking out a situation whereby they have to pay the licence fee because they like watching television but don't use the BBC - it's about as plausible as objecting to subsidising the provision of potable water because you only drink, cook, and clean your teeth with Evian and don't need drinkable water just to flush your excrement away.

              It stretches credulity beyond tolerance that any significant number of keen watchers of television are unable to find anything of interest on the BBC.

              For those genuine exceptions who self-identify as notBBC, sorry, it's another example of perfect fairness being too inefficient to be practical. We understand the cause, if perhaps not the extent, of your anger and if we can work out a better way of doing things so that you can be less unhappy without bringing too much inconvenience to the majority we will be delighted.

              In the meantime do keep checking back with the BBC TV, radio, and internet services from time to time in case any of its new, or indeed repeated, programmes do appeal - as you are paying for it anyway you might as well give it a go.

              2 0 Reply
              1. codejunky Silver badge
                Reply Icon

                Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

                @AC

                "I understand the potential unfairness of people paying for something they simply never use but I'd have a lot more sympathy for that argument if the product was actually bad."

                "It stretches credulity beyond tolerance that any significant number of keen watchers of television are unable to find anything of interest on the BBC."

                Hand waving here. Nothing of interest. Stuff I could possibly force myself to watch but nothing to justify parting with any money for. And that doesnt mean the product is bad just as some people choose one mobile phone over another, it is personal preference and freedom of choice. And while basic water supply is a good thing to cover the necessity of water for living and clean water being part of that necessity there is no way to claim the BBC is essential.

                "For those genuine exceptions who self-identify as notBBC, sorry, it's another example of perfect fairness being too inefficient to be practical. We understand the cause, if perhaps not the extent, of your anger and if we can work out a better way of doing things so that you can be less unhappy without bringing too much inconvenience to the majority we will be delighted."

                Interesting bull to justify someone else paying for your entertainment. Funny how so many broadcasters exist without TV license and the BBC requires it to survive. Efficiently if you want it you can pay for it. Very simple and very practical. It is less practical to charge anyone who watches live broadcasts as the technology to receive is not so licensed but the activity is, and the activity can be done through a number of mediums which are not and cannot be tracked leading to inefficient practices such as sending people around to peoples homes to threaten them. So money could surely be saved by not employing these thugs and instead encrypting the signal requiring the watcher to actually pay for their service without forcing anyone else to. But BBC lovers wont like that as the cost goes up.

                "In the meantime do keep checking back with the BBC TV, radio, and internet services from time to time in case any of its new, or indeed repeated, programmes do appeal - as you are paying for it anyway you might as well give it a go."

                Since the money is being scammed from you for not watching the BBC why not come check out the BBC in case there is something you do like. Ha. Victim blaming or just rubbing their faces in it? Personally I ditched TV as Sky had some good shows but I had no intention of paying the BBC to watch often repeated shows when I can just buy the DVD and watch as often as I want.

                1 1 Reply
                1. Zmodem
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

                  the BBC is terrible, with £4,350,000,000 to spend every year, you think you could afford good movies like film 4 and horror, and some good programs like channel 5 and spike

                  1 3 Reply
                  1. MJI Silver badge
                    Reply Icon

                    Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

                    Film 4 actually produce films as well.The main reason they show films is that they are a film channel. Lots of older films, with a few more recent ones repeated a lot.

                    Channel 5 produce good programmes? Name them.

                    0 0 Reply
            2. whileI'mhere
              Reply Icon

              Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

              ... Jaguar ... Nissan...

              You do realise that your unypothecated taxes are to some extent subsidising both, don't you. What all the licence fee haters seem to hate more than the BCC is hypothecated tax. But we need it to be hypothecated to PREVENT it becoming the state broadcaster, or the LCD ad-fest of US TV example.

              0 0 Reply
          2. Dave 15
            Reply Icon

            Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

            There are better funding means - pay per view, subscription, advertising, any acceptable though I would prefer the first two without any adverts.

            The most objectionable things about the licence fee:

            The amount paid from it to 'stars' all of whom could simply be replaced.

            The assumption that everyone should have a licence followed by the threatening letters and visits if you dare to be one of the few to buck the trend.

            The requirement to have a licence so that I can then watch OTHER TV from other providers.

            0 0 Reply
        3. TRT Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

          So essentially, since you don't pay for my private health insurance, why should I pay for your NHS treatment? You can have it, but YOU pay for it. That is what you wanted to do with the £billions isn't it? Put it into the NHS even though there are alternative funding models for health care provision? I'm reading that right, aren't I?

          1 1 Reply
          1. Zmodem
            Reply Icon

            Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

            "since you don't pay for my private health insurance, why should I pay for your NHS treatment?"

            the NHS will still be the people who pick you up in a ambulance after you have dialed 999 in an emergency and take you to your private health care after treating you on the way

            2 1 Reply
            1. TRT Silver badge
              Reply Icon

              Re: the NHS will still be the people who pick you up in a ambulance

              Which was my point. You do actually use the BBC even if you don't realise it. For example the BBC overseas monitoring that provides translated news feeds of interesting items on foreign stations to the government and to news feeds. Another example is the technological developments that they come out with, NICAM for example.

              0 1 Reply
          2. Dave 15
            Reply Icon

            Re: Yours is really the standard pro argument

            Yes there alternative funding models for health:

            The Germans have you use a 'private' health insurer (either privately or via compulsory basic insurance) - it costs more than the NHS and due to the fiddles and back handers makes a huge number of doctors and an even larger number of chemists extraordinarily rich (which is why there are more chemist shops in Germany than any other shop).

            In USA you can buy health insurance if you are rich enough, if you aren't you die.

            Comparing the NHS with BBC is really apples and pears territory anyway. The BBC is funded with a non-ability to pay related fee and the proceeds squandered on giving the likes of Clarkson and some of the even less desirable 'stars' more money than enough. And as for your private health insurance - fine, if the government were to choose to give you the NHSfunding back (as they did with pensions in Thatchers day) I would have no issue with that.

            0 0 Reply
      2. cantankerous swineherd
        Reply Icon

        if you like watching the beeb, pay for it.

        just stop them sending goons round wanting to search my house for non existent televisual apparatus. I haven't got any because TV is bilge for the brain dead.

        9 3 Reply
      3. Zmodem
        Reply Icon

        most people like the bbc, like 10,000 or so, don't need income tax, you can just put national insurance up £10 a month instead of everyone paying the bbc

        knowing you won't die because you have a broken finger is better then having nothing at all for your money

        0 5 Reply
      4. Dave 15
        Reply Icon

        I will bite

        OK, assume that you are right and most people like the content on the BBC then most people would pay to watch it (they do with the licence...) thus you could fund the bbc from all those who love it just by getting them to payperview or pay a subscription. Thus you dont need a licence at all!

        Second the lowest common denominator argument does not hold water at all, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar, various other companies and brands exist and are profitable from NOT offering lowest anything.

        If the bbc chose they could very easily take an approach to provide payperview or subscription, perhaps even a number of channels or types of program to suit both those with no brain cells to stir, those who like science, those who enjoy engineering, those who want properly researched news (the bbc would need to change its journalistic staff for that) and even those weird folk who like 'the arts'.

        Above all it means that I could choose what to watch and what to pay for instead of either being forced to not have TV or (worse) to pay my hard earned so that some crass and stupid individual can be paid millions a year to mess up reading someone elses script (think of all the stars) or even more perversely get paid a fortune so they can demand to have helicopters or chauffeured transport while they touch up other peoples sons and daughters.

        3 3 Reply
        1. Dave 15
          Reply Icon

          Re: I will bite

          Very good right up until the idea the BBC has people of the knowledge and calibre to deliver meaningful science or engineering programs. Just look at Rory Apple Jones

          0 0 Reply
    2. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      How much does commercial TV turn over. How much is that per household and from where does that money ultimately come? Remember, you may not buy a specific good or service but you are sure to be feeding the overall figure, either directly or indirectly even if separated by many steps (and their profit margins on cost)

      4 0 Reply
      1. Dave 15
        Reply Icon

        oh God the advertising argument again

        So you pay for the company selling you washing powder to advertise on TV, you ALSO pay for them to design packaging that means you recognise it, logos, brand names, transport to the shop you buy it from, the advertising billboards, the newspaper and magazine adverts, the shop assistant, the shop roof....

        This is NOT an argument to FORCE me to pay for the BBC in order to see adverts on ITV!!!!!

        3 1 Reply
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > Theoretically you may not need a license just to have a TV set, but in practice you will not get away with just showing a connected device and claiming you never use it for live TV. Will not fly.

    If (for example) you own a TV that's connected to a satellite dish and you have an active Sky subscription then, by the letter of the law, you don't need a licence if you never watch live TV. This however is going to be very hard for you to defend in court and would be pretty stupid anyway.

    If you own a TV that's connected to a media PC / console / DVD player and isn't connected to an aerial, then this isn't even grounds for Crapita to seek a search warrant.

    As noted by MR the best tactic if you are legally without a licence is to just bin Crapita's threat-o-grams and refuse to answer the door to them.

    I own a TV and I've quite legally not had a TV licence for three or four years. I don't think I've even had one of their doorstep salesmen, although I did see one of their G4S stooges lurking around one morning. So yes, it flies very well thanks.

    8 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      "If (for example) you own a TV that's connected to a satellite dish and you have an active Sky subscription then, by the letter of the law, you don't need a licence if you never watch live TV. This however is going to be very hard for you to defend in court and would be pretty stupid anyway."

      I don't see how that would even fit the letter of the law since the BBC channels are broadcast on Astra as DVB-S2 streams on adjacent channels to the sky ones, and every piece of "sky" hardware out there is capable of recieving and displaying them. In fact, I would bet you could make a good argument if the BBC channels weren't on astra and added as a sort of not mentioned valued added bit, then Sky would have been stillborn as a commercial operator.

      I'd like to see HYS closed on the bbc website though. Its really just a place for professional influencers to steer people with quick soundbites and a reason free discussion zone on any topic "opened up" to it. And god, the rest of the world might judge everyone by the mindless hate and intolerance poured out on there.

      2 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        > I don't see how that would even fit the letter of the law since the BBC channels are broadcast on Astra as DVB-S2 streams on adjacent channels to the sky ones

        Point kinda missed...

        The law says that it's not legal to receive the TV transmission as it's broadcast. So you can (in theory) have a whole Sky set up, or a Virgin one, or a plain old aerial all plugged in and tuned without breaking the law. If you don't actually use it then you are not committing an offence.

        It's a ludicrous example that would be next to impossible to defend in court, but it's an important distinction that Crapita like to blur. The law says nothing about owning any equipment capable of receiving the live broadcast, it's strictly about using said equipment to do so.

        0 0 Reply
  3. graeme leggett Silver badge

    comparisons

    "though those are drops in the ocean compared to the sums handed over to the BBC"

    Sky (Europe wide - 21 million subscribers) revenue £10 billion or so

    BBC ( UK pop ) £6 billion, including £1 billion from commercial activities (BBC Worldwide)

    ITV plc (ditto) £3 billion

    CH4 corporation £1 billion

    1 0 Reply
    1. MJI Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: comparisons

      So how come BBC provide so much good stuff for so much less than Sky?

      13 0 Reply
      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: comparisons

        So how come BBC provide so much good stuff for so much less than Sky?

        Not controled by a monopolist with delusions of grandeur?

        (There are two reasons why I have Sky - I live in the shadow of a hill + buildings that means the only mast that I can get a good signal from is blocked almost completely and I like the NFL so get Sky Sports from September to February. The rest of the time 90% of what I watch is BBC channels or stuff made by the BBC..)

        1 0 Reply
      2. Just Enough
        Reply Icon

        Re: comparisons

        >So how come BBC provide so much good stuff for so much less than Sky?

        Because they don't pay astronomical amounts to finance multi-millionaire football clubs.

        4 0 Reply
        1. Zmodem
          Reply Icon

          Re: comparisons

          they provide nothing, they are a complete waste of time

          i have'nt watched anything on the bbc since the south west was able to get channel 5 and nascar was on all night, back in the end of the 90s, i just delete them off my tv and im missing nothing

          0 2 Reply
    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: comparisons

      "Sky (Europe wide - 21 million subscribers) revenue £10 billion or so"

      Considering that broadcasting is still pretty much geo-locked, especially for broadcast rights purchasing, that's a specious comparison. You need the UK subscriber figures and revenue.

      0 0 Reply
      1. graeme leggett Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: comparisons

        I went with the data I could readily find at the time. Looks like UK Sky has been reported around 12 million.

        1 0 Reply
  4. Commswonk

    Typical Politician... Wrong Target

    "Current Culture Secretary Karen Bradley has said little publicly about the TV Licence since her appointment last summer, though she reportedly summoned BBC director general Tony Hall to explain why Capita's salesmen were being promised cash bonuses of £15,000 a year in return for finding 28 non-licence fee payers per week."

    If she really did ask that then I hope Tony Hall responded along the lines of "that question is for Crapita to answer, not me".

    2 1 Reply
  5. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    Impartial???

    I see people on here claiming the Beeb is lefty, righty and establishmenty. I can't think of a better description of an Impartial media group than one that each person sees as against their personal view of the world. I love the BBC and if/when it is killed off by the haters I will mourn the group that permitted the creation of Monty Python, Blackadder, Dr Who, Red Dwarf, Top Gear and so on. Yes it is a bureaucratic monster and needs better (apolitical) oversight, but is worth every penny of the license fee and then some.

    I could care less about adverts as like most people I can tune them out or fast-forward but the advertisers affect what gets broadcast to the point that you just end up with endless quiz shows and other sensationalist shite. Many people are so bored of the advertisements that they run ad-blockers and I am starting to think that way too, so I may have to investigate a TV ad-blocker. We are all sick to the teeth of Gambling/Makeup/Detergent ads.

    On the web the worst are sites where the adverts take ages to load (pay ATTENTION The Register!) and slow the whole web-browser down.

    10 4 Reply
    1. TRT Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Impartial???

      Robot Wars is back on, so I hear. Now if THAT isn't SF fan / Techy fodder, I don't know what is. I would like to see an AI robot battle in the Robot Wars arena, though. Maybe with a self-navigating maze race. Whatever happened to that kids version? Digitbots or something? Olympics style contests for software robot designs/

      1 0 Reply
  6. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Skip the license fee

    We did that and the money needed comes from the budget a bit like with the army. The downside is of course that all those persons with that healthy profession walking around knocking on doors lost their jobs. The cash bonuses of £15,000 a year I find very disturbing, next you will have "report your neighbour and you could win £15,000".

    I agree with Big Boomer, you can still feel proud about the BBC. It's the influence of guys like Murdoch you should worry about.

    3 0 Reply
    1. Ben Tasker
      Reply Icon

      Re: Skip the license fee

      > We did that and the money needed comes from the budget a bit like with the army.

      But then all the people whinging about the license fee will complain all the more because they're worse off.

      At the moment, you can opt out of paying the license fee by not having a TV connected to the aerial and not using BBC. If we fund it from general taxation instead, then that choice will be taken away from you ;)

      1 0 Reply
      1. Lars Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Coat

        Re: Skip the license fee

        "At the moment, you can opt out of paying the license fee". Yes, but I have now been allowed to totally opt out of this whole license fee question. There was a dog tax too long ago. Why mess around with silly things for no good reason, why add to the bureaucracy. And besides those who can hardly pay any tax can watch for free as far as I am concerned.

        PS. the way to opt out cleverly was to newer opt in.

        0 0 Reply
  7. Korev Silver badge

    Could be worse

    Here in Switzerland the TV and radio Licence is about £360 and the quality is pretty crap. They'll get you if all you have is an internet connection or a radio in your car.

    0 0 Reply
    1. TRT Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Could be worse

      Well somebody has to fund the national infrastructure...

      0 0 Reply
    2. Ellipsis
      Reply Icon

      Re: Could be worse

      … and unlike in the U.K., it’s ownership of any device capable of reception that makes you liable for the fee.

      But if “all you have is an internet connection or a radio in your car” – and no Internet TV service accounts – you don’t have to pay the TV fee. (Yet. That will change in a couple of years’ time…)

      1 0 Reply
  8. Velv

    If households are going to be charged a fee for the provision of a public service television then why not just add it to the council tax bill for each property?

    And before you say "but I don't have a TV so I shouldn't pay", I don't have kids but I still need to pay for the local schools.

    6 2 Reply
  9. malfeasance

    For the public good

    The question is really : is a public broadcaster like the BBC considered a public good. If it is then we should pay for it. Much like we pay for schools, the NHS etc. Plenty of people have no kids and still pay for schools because they know it serves a greater good.

    Do I think that the BBC is worth paying for absolutely yes. The Aussie state broadcaster is fucking awful as is the Irish one.

    What do I get from something like 'In our time'. Nothing; but something like it needs to exist.

    1 0 Reply
  10. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Okay mr lets tax everyone regardless.. because reasons?!!?

    If everyone is happy in paying the tax er.. sorry 'licence' every year, then everyone should be happy paying a subscription right?

    If the BBC is producing content that you like then you should be happy to paid the same amount of money as a subscription rather than a tax.

    All the supposedly good shows the BBC produces would also be commercially viable right?

    So not only would they get the income from the subscription they could sell the shows as they already do.

    So why do we have this archaic tax system? It really makes no sense!

    And all the counter arguments I've seen on here to continue the tax are either bias or simply wrong.

    Its frankly not a million miles away from the Film and Music industry refusing to move with the times, where they punish people who dont want to used their old models for product. And they come off looking like complete bullies.

    Turn the BBC subscription based, near complete digital format and sell it world wide, then you wouldnt need to tax the people of one tiny island nation who have less and less money each year.

    Kodi streams appear to be in all the news at the second, but yet the providers STILL refusing to see the potential markets.. it frankly boggles the mind.

    The growth of Netflix and Amazon Prime show that the model does work and yes they do provide some really good content, more REAL competition would be a good thing and even though I dont watch the BBC all that much I do believe it would be a good standard with which the market would have to compete against.

    But to get to that stage we first really have to stop living in 1977.

    0 2 Reply
    1. whileI'mhere
      Reply Icon

      Re: Okay mr lets tax everyone regardless.. because reasons?!!?

      You use that term "commercially viable" like it is the only criterion. There things that are a social good. I want there to be an efficient transport system that adds to the economic and social health of the country, even though I rarely use it, because I want it to be there when I actually DO need to use it. So I am not enamoured of the "marketise everything" approach that says all railway costs must be borne by passengers. You sound like one of those neo-liberals who knows the price of much but the value of almost nothing.

      1 1 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Facepalm

        Re: Okay mr lets tax everyone regardless.. because reasons?!!?

        "You use that term "commercially viable" like it is the only criterion."

        Because in a FREE market it is, if it is successful then it is popular, if it isnt then its not, people will pay for what is worth paying for, everyone on here keeps saying that the BBC is worth paying for because they paid their TV licence, well okay then IF it is so good and provides goof quality of service, then changing to a voluntary subscription rather than a tax you must opt out of and prove time and again of your innocence would be a better thing all round surely.. you know having the money to go into programming rather than spending it on people going round with Vans and other unneeded bureaucratic positions, and instead of throwing people into jail for not paying, you just cut them off (seriously why are people really supporting a system where throwing someone in jail is an option, anyone here heard of anyone going to jail for not paying their sky/virgin bill?) which would also help keep court and prison costs down.. or is that something else that we shouldnt do?!

        "I want there to be an efficient transport system that adds to the economic and social health of the country,"

        So.. you want an efficient system, but you think that best way to achieve that is to throw every ones money at it?!

        efficient system do NOT require, tax money or protectionism. in fact doing that makes them inefficient!

        So your argument makes no sense.

        And neo-liberals do not need to know the price of anything, because free markets will determine what that is at a fair economical price, and Value is attributed to those things that have worth, Commercially and/or Socially. But please dont stop that from using sneering cliches'

        1 1 Reply
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I see your request for a TV licence

    And raise you a VPN...

    0 0 Reply
  12. sawatts

    £147 is still a fraction of what I've been spending annually on Sky or Virgin over the years, and currently paying half that each for Amazon Prime and Netflix. Still end up watching BBC mostly.

    For that matter, back in the 80s I remember an estimate that the advertising costs ITV (etc) where worth £400 pa to the average household.

    So nothings free, but the license fee seems cheap.

    That said, the percentage of new content on all channels is dismal.

    0 0 Reply

  13. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm paying for a license, but only because it's so vague as to whether I need one and I don't want to go to court over it. Everything I watch is online, and then it becomes a question of what is or isn't "TV". This situation can't continue, it must be clarified. IMO the BBC should not be paid for stuff I watch online which is nothing to do with them.

    I also don't like the BBC political bias. Why should I pay for a company to push a political agenda I strongly disagree with? How can that be legal?

    0 0 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like