TV Licensing - very disappointing!

[RogerS]

Up above 100, IIRC. Around the channels the BBC allocates to the red button services.

Beach volleyball: under- or overexposed, depending on where you're sitting, I expect.

Thinking on a bit, the BBC could do a lot for its revenue stream by launching a commercial Beach Volleyball channel, on a loop. The only problem is that they'd probably lose an alarmingly large %age of audience from the other channels. Gotta be a winner, commercially.

All I can find reference to is the Red Button...but that is only one data stream.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Digressing slightly...where are all these extra digital channels to be found? Do they appear as separate channels like BBC1, BBC2 etc or do I have to do something cleverer?

All in the interest of science, you understand..I need to check the exposure on the Beach Volleyball

We had a message that came up on our TV that said to re-tune the freeview to get all the Olympic channels. My daughter re-tuned it because I always make a hash-up of these techno things :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Steve Maskery]

They just don't give up. I've just received yet another letter telling my I may be breaking the law and need to buy a licence. I've a good mind to send it back with two letters scribbled over the front.
S

 

[RogerS]

Digressing slightly...where are all these extra digital channels to be found? Do they appear as separate channels like BBC1, BBC2 etc or do I have to do something cleverer?

All in the interest of science, you understand..I need to check the exposure on the Beach Volleyball

We had a message that came up on our TV that said to re-tune the freeview to get all the Olympic channels. My daughter re-tuned it because I always make a hash-up of these techno things :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

I got that message as well and duly retuned...but no new channels popped up.

 

[mickthetree]

I registered as not having a TV with them Steve. Get one letter a year (albeit very accusing and threatening). I check the rules haven't changed then add the letter to my fuel pile. Never been checked or had a visit.

I watched TV the other night round at my folks (who do have a TV and a licence). Only took me 30 minutes of that mindless drivel to reassure me that I am doing the right thing by not having one.

 

[wobblycogs]

They never give up Steve. We've not had a TV since we bought our fist house many moons ago. I deliberately ignored their letters because, like some others here, I don't believe I should have to declare that I'm not breaking the law. By the end they were getting really aggressive and threatening all manner of legal action. I documented it all on my website which caught the interests of a journalist for, I think it was, the New York Times doing a piece on the differences in funding between American and British TV services. I also wrote to our MP pointing out how threatening the letters were, they were sympathetic but as you can probably guess useless.

Strangely we've been in this house for just over four years and the letters have only just started the other day. Perhaps they have crack downs every now and then.

From my point of view I don't see why you should have to have a license to own a TV. In days gone past when there were only a small number of channels you could argue that everyone with a TV would watch some BBC content. With providers such as Sky, Virgin, Netflix, LoveFilm etc I could easily imagine there are a lot of people that never watch BBC content or only do so via their providers license (e.g. Netflix pay to license BBC content). Additionally, I'm sure there are other people like me who would like to get a TV to use just with a games console but can't because of the odd way the fee is enforced.

The technology to make the BBC a subscription only service is readily available which would solve all of these problems. I don't suppose they will go with it any time soon though as they don't want to find out just how many people would be prepared to live without the BBC.

 

[Steve Maskery]

WC
You don't need a licence in order to own a TV, just if you use it for watching live TV. If you want one to use as a gaming monitor, go ahead. Just don't connect an aerial to it and you are safe. (Well, safe from prosecution, maybe not safe from persecution).

 

[RogerS]

.......

The technology to make the BBC a subscription only service is readily available which would solve all of these problems. I don't suppose they will go with it any time soon though as they don't want to find out just how many people would be prepared to live without the BBC.

Actually you would be very surprised to hear that this assumption is, in fact, totally wrong. There have been many studies and surveys done whereby people are asked how much they would pay to watch the BBC etc and would they do so and the majority are in the affirmative.

 

[wobblycogs]

My understanding was that if a device had a receiver capable of receiving BBC content you needed a license whether an aerial was connected or not. Tell you what I'll write to the TV licensing people and ask them.

EDIT

I'd bet they would answer in the affirmative right up to the point where they have to put their hand in their pocket and pull out the money. A huge percentage of house holds now have Sky or Virgin. I bet a good portion of those would forego the BBC if they could save £145 a year.

 

[Jacob]

I haven't read the thread but if it's about owning but not watching a TV (or several TVs) you don't have to pay a licence fee if they can't prove that you (or anybody in your household) have actually been watching live TV progs. That's why they have detector vans.

 

[RogerS]

My understanding was that if a device had a receiver capable of receiving BBC content you needed a license whether an aerial was connected or not. Tell you what I'll write to the TV licensing people and ask them.

EDIT

I'd bet they would answer in the affirmative right up to the point where they have to put their hand in their pocket and pull out the money. A huge percentage of house holds now have Sky or Virgin. I bet a good portion of those would forego the BBC if they could save £145 a year.

You clearly have a crystal ball and know much more than I do.

 

[wobblycogs]

Not at all Roger. I suspect most people actually think very little about the license fee but this BBC survey (1) seems to indicate that only 70% of license fee payers even have a good grasp of what they are paying for with this survey (2) showing only 47% think it's value for money.

Lets pretend those figures are off an only fairly modest 15% of people would stop paying for BBC content. This would cause a rapid downward spiral as the BBC is already short of money, new content production would decline which would make it harder to keep subscribers which would reduce new content. Rinse, repeat until there's no BBC left.

I'm not anti-BBC, they still make some excellent programs, I'm anti the position the BBC holds. I think the way it's funded is archaic and I despise the bully boy tactics of TV Licensing and I dislike the idea that there is a business, especially one with such an influence on people, being protected by the state for reasons that aren't terribly clear.


1. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/research_081218.pdf
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/18/bbc.television3

 

[beech1948]

As expected this thread has covered much ground. The poor programmes, the repeats, the value or lack of it.

However, a much different view is that the BBC is hanging onto the licence fees simply to grow its business. The original BBC1 has become a multiplicity of channels, web accesses, specialist channels and even special country channels.

The BBC is now a BUSINESS. It is no longer a UK only minority provider but one of the leader's in provision of digital media. The income of which does not have to be recorded as BBC Trust income thus disguising the reality.

The TV licence has no place in being used to fund this. The (im)polite fiction of the BBC being a UK National Broadcaster has long since vanished.

The TV licence is simply a Government Tax being used by the BBC to grow a digital empire.

Any other explanation is fiction, propaganda and misdirection.

Al

 

[Eric The Viking]

I struggle to understand how BBC income doesn't show in its accounts.

Unlike, say, HBO, in recent years the BBC has considerably cut back both the amount and quality of home-grown programming it funds, and most of the big ticket things are co-productions, meaning the BBC doesn't own the IP.

I know it operates a "paywall" for overseas IP addresses for some services, but otherwise pretty much everything it does is free-to-air.

So, unless you know something about a forthcoming big switch to being a commercial operation (and how it might make money from that, which is by no means clear), we're left with an organisation that was once the standard-bearer for the world in broadcast quality (in pretty much every way you might measure that), that's now swapped quality for quantity and doesn't know how to turn things back the other way. In terms of an empire, we have a skewed view of it here in the UK: it's around 20-30,000 people, so not huge. It's dwarfed by News International, and probably too by some of the other US networks (when you include their affiliates).

We certainly agree about it being poor overall, perhaps the difference being that I'd like to see it do less, but better, whereas, if I understand you, you want it (or the licence fee) gone.

Did I get that right?

E.

 

[RogerS]

Where the BBC is falling down IMO is in chasing after audience share. The plethora of tweets, faecebooks, emails, call us with your latest favourite piece of music while you are having a cr*p on Radio 3 means that I listen less and less. I am not alone in this view.

the same goes for flagship programmes like The Archers where a lot of the audience are leaving in droves because the story lines have gone very tabloid ever since the new producer took over and who was a producer IIRC for Eastenders or some such trash,

 

[wobblycogs]

The problem with not chasing audience share is justifying why the money was spent. If the BBC spend £1m producing a piece of rubbish reality TV show that gets 3m viewers the board can justify the spend by claiming to be providing what the public want. If they instead spent £1m on a real science program (not the usual re-hashed stuff they keep putting on) which attracted only 100k viewers they have to justify it by claiming to be upholding standards which is much a tougher position.

While I would love to see far more in depth programming on the BBC, or anywhere else, I realize there's no reasonable sized market for it so it's not going to happen. If there was a decent market one of the commercial channels would already be doing it.

 

[andymac]

It seems to be a little known fact (and one that they don't broadcast ho ho) that the TV licence issuing and chasing is contracted out by the government to Capita the outsourcing company, see http://www.capita.co.uk/about-us/pages/bbctvlicensing.aspx. This is the same company that Birmingham City Council pay four quid to every time one of the Capita call centre employees answers the phone on behalf of the Council and takes a message which then gets totally mangled in a huge game of chinese whispers.

Their "visiting officers" are on a basic salary plus bonus/commission (see http://www.jobisjob.co.uk/london-se...er/job-offer-dszotgqphxlg7sujpqh5rr3vz4?pos=5, sorry don't know how to change it into a link) and it's a chunky bonus, going by the job advert, which probably goes some way to explaining their sometimes aggressive and threatening attitude.

I don't own a telly, and don't want one, and I have the same problem with TV Licence/Capita bugging me with nasty letters. When the time comes around (every three years) for them to disbelieve me again, I write them a letter revoking their presumed right of access and telling them that any attempt to visit me will be regarded as harassment and dealt with robustly. I haven't had a visit yet which is actually quite disappointing !

 

[Racers]

I haven't read the thread but if it's about owning but not watching a TV (or several TVs) you don't have to pay a licence fee if they can't prove that you (or anybody in your household) have actually been watching live TV progs. That's why they have detector vans.

You believe detector vans work :shock:

Pete

 

[Steve Maskery]

There was a very interesting, if slightly tongue-in-cheek program on Radio 4, awhile back, looking at the TV Detector Van, and questioning whether or not there was ever any technology of any kind inside them. The premise was that they were simply a device for intimidation. I don't know the truth about it, as the program itself was inconclusive.
S

 

[Jacob]

I haven't read the thread but if it's about owning but not watching a TV (or several TVs) you don't have to pay a licence fee if they can't prove that you (or anybody in your household) have actually been watching live TV progs. That's why they have detector vans.

You believe detector vans work :shock:

Pete

Don't know.
What I do know is that I was being pestered and threatened to renew a licence when i didn't have telly some years ago, and they sent out the detector van :shock: . It was here several days in a row and I used to lean out of the window and do obscene gestures, gurn, and the occasional mooney. Presumably they wouldn't have persisted if they thought there was nothing in it for them.

I just googled "doing a mooney" images and got nothing!
This was there, but I don't know why -