« Topics
123456...141516
DJGM2,697 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Granada North West Today


Nearly all the BBC’s services for young people have been cut back or eradicated. We’re not
inclined to pay for (or use) something that explicitly isn’t aimed at us.



It's a combination of factors. People of foreign origin are particularly acute when it comes to not buying TV
licences as they often watch foreign satellite channels or internet TV. I know for sure that my local Kurdish
barber's shop does not have a TV licence and the TV on the wall only shows a Kurdish TV channel.

Serious questions need to be asked about the (range of) services that the BBC provides and whether
there are more modern and sensible ways of funding them than the 'flat rate' TV licence.


Watching a foreign satellite channel, Kurdish TV or otherwise, as broadcast, apparently still requires a TV Licence.
"The Not-So-Late-Show with Greg Mitchell" Tuesdays 4-6pm on Roch Valley Radio - rochvalleyradio.org.uk

(Until further notice!)
London Lite10,720 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London


Nearly all the BBC’s services for young people have been cut back or eradicated. We’re not
inclined to pay for (or use) something that explicitly isn’t aimed at us.



It's a combination of factors. People of foreign origin are particularly acute when it comes to not buying TV
licences as they often watch foreign satellite channels or internet TV. I know for sure that my local Kurdish
barber's shop does not have a TV licence and the TV on the wall only shows a Kurdish TV channel.

Serious questions need to be asked about the (range of) services that the BBC provides and whether
there are more modern and sensible ways of funding them than the 'flat rate' TV licence.


Watching a foreign satellite channel, Kurdish TV or otherwise, as broadcast, apparently still requires a TV Licence.


It does, regardless if you use an aerial, satellite or streaming live channels still requires a licence.

You can use a tv to watch VOD services such as Netflix without a licence, with the exception of iPlayer.
Charlie Wells3,789 posts since 26 Nov 2003 Moderator
Anglia (West) Look East (West sub-opt)
It starting to look like that in the end the BBC will be forced to cut services instead judging by how politicians are reacting

You do seem to like your hyperboles.


As others have commented the BBC found itself between a rock and hard place due to the government forcing the BBC to fund the free licences instead of being funded directly from central government as part of the 2015 settlement.

Personally long term I'd prefer TV licence fee to be collected for residential properties via the council tax, with the option for reduced rate(s) and opt-out if eligible (e.g. due to pension credit, or declaring no TV or internet catch-up use). I also think that long term the £52 black & white TV licences either need axing or at least be nearer £100 (compared to £154.50 for a colour licence). As of September last year there were 7000 black and white licences still in force (source), which I struggle to believe all genuinely don't have colour TVs. (I wonder if at present you can legally have a B&W licence, not watch live TV on any but watch catch-up on mobile & PC?)
"Listen, we've all got something to bring to this conversation, but from now on what I think you should bring is silence." - Rimmer
3
mat76, Pete and UKnews gave kudos
itsrobert6,367 posts since 23 Mar 2001
Granada North West Today
I’m a bit torn on this debate. On the one hand I feel that the BBC’s existence as a public service broadcaster is nonnegotiable. However, I have to ask if the BBC couldn’t stand to be cut back a bit? It does seem very bloated and tries to do too much. I get the point that they are trying to cater for everyone in the public good, but getting back to basics might not be a bad thing. I would certainly be happy to pay for a smaller but much higher quality BBC.

It currently feels like it’s spreading itself so thin it’s impossible to do anything exceptionally well with current funding levels. For instance, the BBC News Channel has been reduced to a joke. I hardly tune in anymore because there is so little of interest on it, it might as well not exist at all. My preference would be to focus on producing the highest possible quality bulletins on TV and radio and a strong online presence. Similarly, BBC Four is great but they could merge it with BBC Two and just have two very high quality TV channels again.

I definitely think in some areas there could be cost savings made. But I wouldn’t ever want to see the BBC completely abolished. That would not be good for anyone.
1
Night Thoughts gave kudos
Steve in Pudsey10,277 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had around the PSB remit of the BBC.

I could see a model where the more commercially viable non PSB programming (EastEnders, Strictly) is sold off to other broadcasters, with the BBC continuing to produce it as an indie.

That additional income and new gaps in the schedule subsidise the more niche programming that commercial channels wouldn't touch, and helps to offset the net reduction in licence fee. As well as creating new opportunities for up and coming writers and programme makers.
Write that down in your copybook now.
Riaz614 posts since 6 Jan 2016
Watching a foreign satellite channel, Kurdish TV or otherwise, as broadcast, apparently still requires a TV Licence.


Legally, yes it does. However, most people begrudge having to pay for something that they clearly do not use. Therefore it isn't surprising that a significant number of people who only watch foreign TV channels and do not watch the BBC refuse to buy a TV licence. Honesty has also gone into serious decline over the past few decades, and certain people of foreign origin may not subscribe to the old British values of trust, respect, and fair play.

One could argue it's a victimless crime to watch non-BBC TV channels without a TV licence.
Neil Jones5,509 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
Honesty has also gone into serious decline over the past few decades, and certain people of foreign origin may not subscribe to the old British values of trust, respect, and fair play.


The 1950s called, they want their views back.

Quote:
One could argue it's a victimless crime to watch non-BBC TV channels without a TV licence.


Do pray tell.
5
Hatton Cross, chevron and 3 others
  • Cando
  • davidhorman
  • james-2001
gave kudos
Ash10168 posts since 25 Mar 2018
Meridian (South) South Today
I also think that long term the £52 black & white TV licences either need axing or at least be nearer £100 (compared to £154.50 for a colour licence). As of September last year there were 7000 black and white licences still in force (source), which I struggle to believe all genuinely don't have colour TVs. (I wonder if at present you can legally have a B&W licence, not watch live TV on any but watch catch-up on mobile & PC?)


How are you realistically watching TV in only Black & White in 2019? Do B&W sets with Freeview built in exists?

After digital switch-over it does feel like that number should be much closer to zero.

If you’re feeding a Freeview box through to an old B&W TV, should you not still be paying for a colour licence as the Freeview set is technically receiving in colour?
Neil Jones5,509 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
If you’re feeding a Freeview box through to an old B&W TV, should you not still be paying for a colour licence as the Freeview set is technically receiving in colour?


I think the "ability to receive colour" ends with the TV (as it used to be) and a Freeview box muddles the waters somewhat. It used to be the case in the analogue days that since the tuner was in the TV that was the point at which it was decided you qualify for B&W licence only.