UK still has 13,000 B & W televisions

[Mark Kenfield]

Australia used to have a licence for the ABC, by most accounts the quality of shows/films made back when there was funding for it (provided by the licence) was far superior in general to what we get these days.

I can't even stand commercial television these days, between the relentless ads and the godawful shows - I've switched to DVDs and digital downloads of TV shows entirely.

Whenever we've been back over in the UK visiting family I've always been really impressed with the TV content. Personally I think the BBC's got a good model.

[Lee Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Game

Irish english. {;¬{

That be only Northern Ireland of course?

[Lee Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Game

A single TV Licence permits all residents in a single dwelling to view as many TVs that are used in that dwelling. (A 'dwelling' does not mean a block of apartments or a hotel). So if you keep all those old CRT sets in the garage or loft, there is no additional charge. If you declare that you have ceased watching TV altogether, (and maybe use the TV sets as monitors for playback of recordings or playing games on a console), no licence is required. One is required if recordings are made from real-time broadcasts/streams.
The authority may call round to verify your declaration that you no longer watch TV and then leave you alone for 2 years.

What a horrible totalitarian system. Are they any other countries that do this and what if you want to watch DVDs or Blu ray? What if a laptop to watch online videos was connected to a tv?

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Jalan Salur

That be only Northern Ireland of course?

Of course, - although the accent there has a similarity to the brogue spoken by those outside the six counties. (Steps back to avoid any flames).

Originally Posted by Jalan Salur

What a horrible totalitarian system. Are they any other countries that do this and what if you want to watch DVDs or Blu ray? What if a laptop to watch online videos was connected to a tv?

Not sure what you mean by totalitarian. If you Google 'TV Licence', you can see just how many countries do fully or part fund services by receiving licence or direct government funding. As you can see from other posts in this thread, those who have visited the UK and sampled our regular TV services, seem only envy us for it. Maybe you haven't had the opportunity to make that judgement. Sever
A TV licence is not required to watch DVD's or Blu-Ray material using a monitor which happens to be a TV receiver, or even material recorded off-air by somebody that does have a TV licence. What you cannot do is watch broadcast material at broadcast time from any source, (i.e. not on a 'catch-up' website like the BBC i-Player).
Most UK citizens accept that it is necessary to hold a TV licence and grudgingly (because it is a tax or sorts) pay up without question. There are a few freeloaders who try to justify why they shouldn't pay - as for any tax. The fact is that for many years, it has been demonstrated that (frequently inferior) UK commercial TV programming costs more than the BBC's output through added costs on purchased goods and services and buyers have no choice whether they watch TV or not.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jalan Salur

What a horrible totalitarian system. Are they any other countries that do this and what if you want to watch DVDs or Blu ray? What if a laptop to watch online videos was connected to a tv?

I remember some years ago being on a smallish boat for a week, only Brit with everybody else American. Most of the time there was broad commonality in general outlook etc, but when the subject of the TV licence came up I remember almost universal horror about the concept from fellow passengers. But as others have said, when you've grown up with it, you don't really consider it that big a deal, and the majority view in the UK is that it's the least of evils - and the more anyone has lived outside the UK, the stronger that view tends to be.

Every now and then it comes up as a topic for debate, and no, nobody likes taxes - but so far nobody has been able to think of an overall better system of funding. That was really brought home to me during the summer when the BBC televised the Olympics, whilst a commercial channel televised the Paralympics. I don't think I was the only person who was very unimpressed when the opening ceremony of the latter was interrupted for adverts.

Most people see it as the least of evils, and it's FAR less than most cable or satellite subscriptions. Surely it's no different in principle to such as a road fund tax - if you want to use a car on public roads, you have to pay an annual fee? At least with the TV licence the money is ring fenced and goes to the BBC, all road tax doesn't go towards road maintenance!

[Trevor Dennis]

I don't know what the license fee is, but I bet it is more than worth the price to have two channels with the world leading quality of the BBC, and not a single commercial break to ruin the flow of a tense program.

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by Trevor Dennis

I don't know what the license fee is, but I bet it is more than worth the price to have two channels with the world leading quality of the BBC, and not a single commercial break to ruin the flow of a tense program.

It's a lot more than that:

BBC1
BBC2
BBC3
BBC4
BBC1 HD
BBC HD
BBC News 24
BBC Parliament
CBBC
BBC Cbeebies

and BBC World and BBC Asia and all the regional BBC local TV stations.

then there is the radio

Radio1
Radio2
Radio3
Radio4
Radio5
Radio6

and even more regional radio stations and loads more I have probably forgotten or I am not aware of as they serve cultural minorities, BBC i-player and all the RED button and on-line services,

then all the world service channels and the commercial channels in other countries makes a public service broadcaster that actually brings in £8 billion worth of revenue on top of the licence fee!

Now what does Mr Murdoch et all do for our country, probably evade paying the tax that is due on their turnover due to offshore fiddles, oh and end up with half of their staff in court for phone tapping etc ?
and ITV have made hundreds of my colleagues and me redundant so they can pay simon cowell et all to make their commercial Pap!

all for less than 50p a day!

[Steve Game]

Jalan,

How much TV have you personally seen from a broadcaster supported by a 'horribly totalitarian system' like ours? Can you say how it compares in quality and quantity to that served up by your national broadcasters which I presume are 'democratic' and free from government and commercial interference?

In my two holidays in Bali, available TV was restricted to local Indonesian TV and US provided CNN news. It was the choice of the hotels in which I stayed. I was familiar with the CNN service but my Bahasa Indonesia is non-existent so I couldn't appreciate what was being said on the indigenous channels.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Trevor Dennis

............ but I bet it is more than worth the price to have two channels with the world leading quality of the BBC, and not a single commercial break to ruin the flow of a tense program.

And leaving the BBC aside, it means less competition for advertising revenue which benefits the main commercial channels. Hence ITV can fund some pretty expensive drama. The other knockon is that even on the main advertising funded channels, the timing of the adverts is controlled and regulated to defined breaks, rather than being scattered throughout a programme as in many countries.

[Lee Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Game

Jalan,

How much TV have you personally seen from a broadcaster supported by a 'horribly totalitarian system' like ours? Can you say how it compares in quality and quantity to that served up by your national broadcasters which I presume are 'democratic' and free from government and commercial interference?

In my two holidays in Bali, available TV was restricted to local Indonesian TV and US provided CNN news. It was the choice of the hotels in which I stayed. I was familiar with the CNN service but my Bahasa Indonesia is non-existent so I couldn't appreciate what was being said on the indigenous channels.

Each to their own opinions Steve. I have seen plenty of UK TV thanks and whilst most of the dramas produced by the BBC are good quality, there is also an awful lot of junk. Indonesian TV isnt great, and neither is Australian of which do not have a licencing system.

To force lawfully a licence onto individuals is in my opinion wrong. You already purchase the set then pay for the transmission. Nobody yet has answered me about why you cannot just have a TV for DVDs???

[Adrian Frearson]

Jalan, the way I understand it, is that you're paying the licence fee to watch transmitted TV and radio broadcasts ( including iPlayer etc. ). I think it's possible to have a TV/Monitor just for watching DVDs and not pay, as long as you can prove that it isn't used as a traditional TV.

While I agree that the BBC and licence fee system does work and we benefit from some great programming as a result, it isn't without it's problems and should be questioned on a regular basis to stay relevant, especially as peoples viewing habits change.

[Ronald Jackson]

Not forgetting the Beebs five orchestras and that they commission something like 200 pieces of original music each year.

Ron

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jalan Salur

Nobody yet has answered me about why you cannot just have a TV for DVDs???

Well, Steve Game answered you pretty clearly straight after you first asked the question:

Originally Posted by Steve Game

A TV licence is not required to watch DVD's or Blu-Ray material using a monitor which happens to be a TV receiver, or even material recorded off-air by somebody that does have a TV licence.

If you want the definitive answer, : TV Licensing - How to tell us you don't watch TV

.........You don't need a licence if ........... you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

Originally Posted by Jalan Salur

To force lawfully a licence onto individuals is in my opinion wrong. You already purchase the set then pay for the transmission.

Can I ask if you also think it wrong that anyone without children should pay taxes to pay for schools? What about other forms of charges, to pay for water, sewage, and a host of similar services? What if I only drive my car 500 miles a year on public roads - should I pay the same road tax as someone who does 20,000? Are these fees/taxes also a sign of a "horrible totalitarian system"?

No, nobody likes paying taxes of any sort, and I'd be the first to agree that they should be kept to a minimum and there should be a high level of accountability. But realistically, what's the alternative? Isn't it recognised that in principle some level of taxation and public spending is neccessary, the debate within nearly every country being the level, not the principle. And in the UK, the TV licence is probably less unpopular than other forms of fees/taxation.

[Paul R Johnson]

"have in your possession" and "television receiving apparatus" are the key words. It was also extended to include "capable of" when people started using TV's connected to a VCR to avoid paying the license. So if the TV or VCR could receive TV signals, you needed a license. A TV aerial, or evidence of recording, such as tapes wasn't needed. If it could do it, they could fine you. A monitor and DVD player were ok! They get records from every TV set sale, from the dealer - so it's just a data matching exercise. Frankly though - people now pay many times more for satellite and internet delivery than the TV license costs, so the old complaints don't work any more.

[Lee Mullen]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Well, Steve Game answered you pretty clearly straight after you first asked the question:

If you want the definitive answer, : TV Licensing - How to tell us you don't watch TV


Can I ask if you also think it wrong that anyone without children should pay taxes to pay for schools? What about other forms of charges, to pay for water, sewage, and a host of similar services? What if I only drive my car 500 miles a year on public roads - should I pay the same road tax as someone who does 20,000? Are these fees/taxes also a sign of a "horrible totalitarian system"?

Seems you quite like the idea of socialism??....