TV Licenses are stupid :(

[Bugz]

I have to pay double for the first six months just so they are 'ahead' on my payments by 6 months. What a rip

My phone line doesn't charge me double for the first six months; neither does my internet etc.

I hope one day they abolish the fuckin thing. The only thing worth watching on the bbc is fuckin family guy & live at the apollo on bbc3 anyway - and they're just repeats!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Tell me about it.

Finnish tv license is because of two tv channels that don't have commercials(ofcourse gov. owned) and as such, they charge for the whole lot.

Now they're planning on bringing internet into the same license AND to take it straight out as a tax.

Those two tv channels are worth f*ck all, especially after they stopped showing Bab 5.

 

[dysfunction]

I have no problems with the British TV license...

There are adverts on *all* South African TV channels...even the government owned ones....

 

[Rubber Bullets]

I still pay mine quarterly by DD. I was offered the same deal (or similar Bugz) and told I'd be better off, it is slightly cheaper after all, but I worked out that I'd have to be paying till I was well over 60 before the slight saving would offset the extra that you have to pay up front.

Total rip off I agree, the monthly DD that is, I don't mind paying in principal, I quite like BBC stuff and so does my daughter.

RB

 

[Sparx]

I dont pay it. But then i dont receive live feed into my house, none of the TVs have an aerial. And before you say it no you dont need a licence for iplayer, unless you watch the live feed which i dont.

 

[Tom]

As long as the BBC continue to produce such quality programming as this:

BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2009-2010: Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole? (HD)

I'm quite happy to pay the licence fee. Its superb value for money. BTW OP, if you don't want to 'pay ahead' just pay in full, as you do with your VED.

 

[DaGaffer]

I have no problems with the British TV license...

There are adverts on *all* South African TV channels...even the government owned ones....

Same in Ireland, and the licence is a fair bit more expensive than the UK one.

 

[Ch3tan]

You don't "have" to Bugz, there are other payment options.

 

[tris-]

i went with 4 quarterly payments. costs about 2 quid more or something i think.

 

[Olgaline]

oh,
In denmark they've come up with a brand new one.

Media Licence! hoohoo!

This means you pay a full licence weather you have,
A tv, a computer with internet accses, even "and this is a good one"
even if you have a smart phone, and nothing els, you have the pleasure
of paying a full licence, we pay roughly 200kr (£20) pr. month for this pile of junk!
for what ? for 2 tv stations we barely ever watch.

 

[Lamp]

Whats the score with blind people ? They get 50% off !??!!

 

[Moriath]

I dont pay it. But then i dont receive live feed into my house, none of the TVs have an aerial. And before you say it no you dont need a licence for iplayer, unless you watch the live feed which i dont.

ok ignore me im wrong looked it up tho i cant see the point of having a TV without using it at least some times to watch Tv events

 

[Zede]

As long as the BBC continue to produce such quality programming as this:

BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2009-2010: Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole? (HD)

I'm quite happy to pay the licence fee. Its superb value for money. BTW OP, if you don't want to 'pay ahead' just pay in full, as you do with your VED.

problem is, even if say you have all the BBC channels disabled, heck even if you dont even watch tv - you still have to pay it. Its a tax for owning a television.

1 hour a weeks good viewing is not superb value for money !

 

[Moriath]

thats not true i looked it up on the tv licensing website and you only have to pay if you use them to record or watch live broadcast tv

difficult to prove you dont see any of it if the tv license man comes round i would guess tho

 

[Ch3tan]

thats not true i looked it up on the tv licensing website and you only have to pay if you use them to record or watch live broadcast tv

difficult to prove you dont see any of it if the tv license man comes round i would guess tho

Not really, the burden of proof is on them, and they have no right to enter your home.

 

[Thadius]

Only good thing about the BBC is the BBC news website.

The radio stations are dire, filled with overrated presenters(Russel Brand, Chris Moyles) or just shit( Johnathen Ross)

Moving on to television, there is nothing that makes me go wow, ill stop in and watch the tv. The Attenborough dpcumentaries are great, granted, but thats a lot of money for one show. Family Guy is not even made by the BBC either.

Eastenders is shite, the first series of the "new" Dr Who was great, but that has tapered off.

I miss the days of GREAT comedy funded by the BBC(Red Dwarf, Bottom, Young Ones, Brittas Empire, Steptoe and Son, Dad's Army, Absolutely Fabulous, Black adder, One Foot in the Grave, Monty Python etc). Best thing comedy wise nowadays is Have I got News for You, which doesnt need much imput due to it being satire, and politicians generally make tits of themselves anyway.

 

[Ch3tan]

Thad - opinions are like arseholes.

I disagree with a lot of what you say, I'm happy with most of the content the Beeb puts out. There are always things I do not like, I agree about Eastenders for example, but enough people watch it to prove that it is wanted.

 

[Tom]

problem is, even if say you have all the BBC channels disabled, heck even if you dont even watch tv - you still have to pay it. Its a tax for owning a television.

1 hour a weeks good viewing is not superb value for money !

It is when you consider the massive range of programming on offer, and also factor in the many radio stations they broadcast. My car radio never leaves R5Live or R4.

That isn't to say the BBC isn't badly run, because its full of overpaid executives who don't have the first idea about programming. The licence fee is still a bargain though.

 

[Raven]

That's nice but they also pay Jonathan Ross 16 Million a year for around an hours programming a week and (as Mark and Lard would say) sit around and play records for a couple of hours.

 

[DaGaffer]

That's nice but they also pay Jonathan Ross 16 Million a year for around an hours programming a week and (as Mark and Lard would say) sit around and play records for a couple of hours.

And I don't think many people would disagree with you, especially if you compare him to say; Jay Leno, who gets $30M for five nights a week and four times the ratings; and most people in the US think he's not worth it.

But Jonathan Ross aside, the BBC is still good value. iPlayer, radio, HD content, and enough good home-grown shows (Who, Spooks, Documentaries etc.).

The thing is, you don't realise what good value it is until you don't have it anymore; I really miss 5live and R4 in the car (I can get them online), and I really miss the iPlayer.

 

[Trem]

As a counter argument I have just 3 words to.....Strictly.....Come.....Dancing. Even if you were happy to pay the fee then surely that program would make your head explode with rage when you realise that WE pay to make it

 

[old.Tohtori]

TV lisence shoud work like an electricity bill.

More you use, more you pay(limited to the maximum) and TV channels choose if they are payable or not.

 

[Moriath]

well the only time i look at itv is for the champions league ... other than that I think its rubbish

Saturday night BBC is just plain crap but there are Gems out there like horizon .. attenborough , mock the week and such which i dont begrudge paying the license fee for ..

Oh and adverts drive me nuts .. i hate them with a passion

 

[Raven]

I will agree with Iplayer, I have only really recently started using it. I watch more on that than I do on TV now. I have changed my mind in recent weeks with regards to the value of the license fee simply because of I-player. Its how I would like all TV to be, on demand at a cost, either by subscription or by pay-per-view. The crap that nobody watches would vanish overnight along with most adverts. I think the adverts would move to product placement and sponsorship deals rather than meaningless 30 second clips that people just fast forward through or channel hop over anyway.

 

[Raven]

The BBC is totally mismanaged though, its not good value for money simply because they waste so much of it on pointless management and over inflated salaries.

 

[Jupitus]

I made time and watched that Horizon episode last night and was glued to my screen, I just wish I had more time to enjoy some of that kind of output, utterly awesome tv and well worth the licence fee IMHO. Also, F1 coverage this year has been a million miles better than ITV managed, even despite Jonathan Leg-end who is a tool, another one worth plugging.

 

[Moriath]

Yup the F1 coverage is much better i dont see how ITV got away with putting adverts in the middle of a live sporting event that is fast moving .. not like cricket

 

[Sparx]

The TV Licence company are actually a private company and not government run. They have no right to enter your house at all. You can just say good luck proving it and close the door, they will need a warrant just like anyone entering your house.

And the topic of why have a TV. There is absolutely no signal in my area, its due to living so close to ally pally (and the BBC tower) it messes up signal for some reason.
Because of that none of our TVs are tuned and we only use it for DVD/BD, PC and xbox

And like someone said you dont need a licence just for owning a TV, its myth the licence people are very slow to answer, the licence is for receiving and recording live feed and radio (btw i listen to kiss 100 and heart)

Also the TV licence vans are fake too, their house location equipment is a sat nav thats it. And you will notice most of the time you see a van will be in a supermarket carpark etc, somewhere where most people will see them so they believe they are real.

 

[GReaper]

The BBC is certainly worthwhile. Great news website, iPlayer through your browser, on your PS3, even coming soon on Freesat boxes, plenty of decent shows, wide choice of radio stations and TV channels. In many ways it feels like BBC is outdoing their commercial rivals by providing additional quality services.

However I do wish that they'd freeze or lower the yearly increases for the license for a while. The BBC should all be about getting value for money and not paying huge salaries for people like Jonathan Ross. They should not be paying vast sums of money if they can avoid it, unless BBC Worldwide can get enough revenue back to justify it.

I'm sure people moan about the cost of it, but just go and watch a US TV station and see what our channels could end up like without a quality national broadcaster.

 

[Thadius]

I still think the license fee should be either reduced or be abolished.

The system has changed since it first was introduced in 1946. We no longer have to rely on the BBC for telelvision and radio. If the BBc want to remain competetive, they should go down the route ITV has to, ie have commericials.

Why should you have to pay for the BBC, when you already subscribe to Sky/Virgin?

I'm sure people moan about the cost of it, but just go and watch a US TV station and see what our channels could end up like without a quality national broadcaster.

I watch Sky, so adverts do not bother me. The quality of the tv shows are much better too.