TV Licensing

[Busaholic]

Always used to renew my TV licence at the Post Office, until that option was withdrawn a few years ago, after that by post. This year, after I don't know how many entreaties, I relented and did it through their approved method, their website. Took a lot of unnecessary faffing around until, almost completed, asked the killer question - are you going to print the licence out or do we have the incredible expense and bureaucratic effort of sending one to you, just like we used to? I chose the latter, or tried to - eventually it succumbed and, through collective gritted teeth, agreed, probably just this once and as a special favour, to send the licence out, which should be received in four or five days. Now, given this was 31st December I sensibly allowed two weeks, almost at the end of which said licence duly appeared.

Today I received the following letter from TV Licensing, parts of which I reproduce without comment (the bits left out have no relevance and don't affect its meaning) save to say the date quoted is not my misprint: also to say how glad I was to insist on them sending me the licence.

'Dear Mr ,
Thank you for your application to pay for a TV licence by debit/credit card through our website.

An automatic email would have been sent to confirm that payment had been accepted and a licence would have followed shortly after.

Due to a technical problem your card details were not processed. As we had no payment, we have now revoked your licence from the date of this letter. This means that your licence expired at the end of December 2015.

If you still wish payment to be processed by debit/credit card please re-submit all relevant information on our website, or contact us on above telephone number.'

 

[bb21]

Check your bank account!!!

 

[yorkie]

I don't think the TV license will be viable for much longer. Young people today are used to watching videos at a time that is convenient for them, by using 'catch up' or video sites such as Youtube etc.

The only real need for live video is if you want to watch live sport, but it's better to be there, and failing that you can always go to a pub or watch the highlights later.

The letters they send are so threatening, and any company or organisation that sends such a threatening letter is not the sort you want to be giving money to. Combined with making it difficult to pay, as you say, they seem to be almost trying to put themselves out of business in the long run. (The only other industry I know of that can be so threatening and unfriendly towards its customers is the rail industry! )

 

[Busaholic]

Check your bank account!!!

I shall be!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The text says that your licence expired (past tense - not what you wanted) at the end of December 2015 (in the future - exactly what you wanted).

Which is it? Perhaps you are now Licensed, whether a payment was taken or not ? (The licence can stand as a valid permission even if there was an error in taking payment).

 

[Busaholic]

I don't think the TV license will be viable for much longer. Young people today are used to watching videos at a time that is convenient for them, by using 'catch up' or video sites such as Youtube etc.

The only real need for live video is if you want to watch live sport, but it's better to be there, and failing that you can always go to a pub or watch the highlights later.

The letters they send are so threatening, and any company or organisation that sends such a threatening letter is not the sort you want to be giving money to. Combined with making it difficult to pay, as you say, they seem to be almost trying to put themselves out of business in the long run. (The only other industry I know of that can be so threatening and unfriendly towards its customers is the rail industry! )

I understand the leading article in today's Metro newspaper is headed 'Rail companies told to stop treating customers like criminals' : saw this flashed on newspaper review programme last night, but don't know further details. I see this subject as gaining a head of steam and deservedly so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the TV license will be viable for much longer. Young people today are used to watching videos at a time that is convenient for them, by using 'catch up' or video sites such as Youtube etc.

Yes, most of my TV viewing is via catchup, though as I occasionally watch news etc I need to keep the licence.

TBH I think, if we accept the BBC is worth having, it's time just to fund via general taxation and do away with the licence, much of the cost of which must be the administration of collecting and enforcing it.

Neil

 

[yorkie]

TBH I think, if we accept the BBC is worth having, it's time just to fund via general taxation and do away with the licence, much of the cost of which must be the administration of collecting and enforcing it.

I totally agree. And if that's not done, I can't see the BBC being viable in the long run.

 

[GB]

In the digital age, other than the obvious...why can't the BBC be paid for via subscription services and those that wan't it can pay for it and those that don't won't have to.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Did you mistype 2015 or did they mistype 2015? If the latter then I'd take that as proof you have a licence and just carry on as normal. If the former then check your bank account to make sure they didn't take the money.

I find TV Licensing a nightmare to deal with, especially for my poorer clients. They charge £2 a month for the privilege of paying by direct debit, which in this day and age is shameful given that it's the poorest people who will need to pay by instalment. As for the threatening letters, until I move in with t'missus I didn't watch live TV yet got a nasty letter at least twice a week. It makes me wonder how many people cave in and cough up just to stop the bullying.

TBH I think, if we accept the BBC is worth having, it's time just to fund via general taxation and do away with the licence

I completely disagree. The only people paying for the BBC should be the people who are watching or listening to the BBC.

If the BBC is that good it can stand on its own two feet as a subscription service. People are happy paying subscriptions for things they want- Sky, BT Sport, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc etc- and the technology is there to stop non-subscribers using the service. As a subscription service it will even have more freedom than it currently does, it can set its own pricing and won't have to beg the government for a new charter every few years.

 

[gordonthemoron]

perhaps we should move to the German model of every home requiring a TV licence whether you have a TV or not? (At least that was better than the previous arrangement whereby every TV and radio required a licence)

 

[WelshBluebird]

I find TV Licensing a nightmare to deal with, especially for my poorer clients. They charge £2 a month for the privilege of paying by direct debit, which in this day and age is shameful given that it's the poorest people who will need to pay by instalment..

Wow. Don't most companies give you a discount for paying by direct debit!! (utility / communications companies anyway)

 

[Darandio]

Wow. Don't most companies give you a discount for paying by direct debit!! (utility / communications companies anyway)

Indeed, Virgin Media are £5 per month I think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the digital age, other than the obvious...why can't the BBC be paid for via subscription services and those that wan't it can pay for it and those that don't won't have to.

Because it destroys the concept of the kind of public service broadcasting the BBC provides. (Before Channel 4 comes into the argument, that also receives public funding for that kind of programming from, umm, general taxation).

If the decision (could be something important enough for a referendum) is that the taxation model isn't viable for the BBC, IMO it might as well be shut down or fully privatised to do as it wishes with its own money.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

perhaps we should move to the German model of every home requiring a TV licence whether you have a TV or not? (At least that was better than the previous arrangement whereby every TV and radio required a licence)

If you're going to do that, you might as well save money on the enforcement and just pay for it by way of taxation, or by a levy on another household bill like Council Tax or utilities. Having its own collection and enforcement mechanism is costly, and only has value if it is an optional fee (if you have a TV).

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the BBC is that good it can stand on its own two feet as a subscription service.

That's not how public-service broadcasting works. As I say I think it's important enough for a referendum, and if the vote goes against funding from taxation I think it should just be shut down or fully privatised (and will thus shut most of its operation down).

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's not how public-service broadcasting works. As I say I think it's important enough for a referendum, and if the vote goes against funding from taxation I think it should just be shut down or fully privatised (and will thus shut most of its operation down)

What is "public service broadcasting" though? EastEnders isn't, nor is Top Gear or Doctor Who or The Voice or Casualty or Match of the Day or F1 or...

Much of the BBC's output has equivalents in the commercial sector. The only radio station that doesn't have a commercial equivalent is probably radio 4. Everything else- news, local radio, classical music, popular music, children's programming- has plenty of equivalents in the commercial sector. There isn't a TV station that the BBC have that doesn't have a commercial equivalent.

I know the BBC like to claim the world will cave in if they have to stand on their own two feet, but everyone else in broadcasting has to. If anything, having the BBC there with its bottomless money pit distorts the rest of the market.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What has this got to do with Busaholic's question of the validity of the Licence?
Nothing!

 

[ainsworth74]

What has this got to do with Busaholic's question of the validity of the Licence?
Nothing!

Perhaps but it's an interesting discussion and until Busaholic reports back with news about his bank statement (drinks on them?) we might well discuss the wider issues of the TV Licence

 

[Johnuk123]

A state broadcaster is a thing of the long dead past, it's like something from 50's Russia, the BBC should be paid for only by people who want to watch it.

If somebody pushed an unwanted copy of the Times through your door every day and at the end of the week came for the money you'd tell them to do one.
No different to the BBC forcing you to pay for its content even if you have no desire to watch it.

 

[jon0844]

Be careful what you wish for. If you want websites full of click bait or the cheapest reality (and now faux reality) shows, and everything funded - or not - based on what gets the advertising and sponsorship, then get rid of the fee and make the BBC get funded via that model instead.

 

[Johnuk123]

Be careful what you wish for. If you want websites full of click bait or the cheapest reality (and now faux reality) shows, and everything funded - or not - based on what gets the advertising and sponsorship, then get rid of the fee and make the BBC get funded via that model instead.

Haven't you noticed the BBC is packed with reality shows you can't move for some idiot making cakes.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

In the digital age, other than the obvious...why can't the BBC be paid for via subscription services and those that wan't it can pay for it and those that don't won't have to.

Who would pay hundreds of pounds a year to watch BBC??
This is BBC1 tomorrow:
Breakfast, Wanted Down Under, Homes under the Hammer, Saints and Scrongers, Helicopter Heroes down under, Bargain Hunt, news, Doctors, Father Brown, The Link, Escape to the country, Pointless, newd again etc etc etc.

BBC are the worst channel in my opinion. They lie about being non biased. They have used anti terrorist laws to track non payment of licenses. They force people to pay their costs. They show cheap reality TV constantly. They have more repeats than ever before. They are planning to scrap BBC3 so a 1+1 channel will start. Imagine watching the news an hour later! Why should we pay?? This is totally unfair.

I would rather BBC showed adverts. They already allow Product placement on their shows, they constantly advertise themselves on breakfast and the news. And the World service does it overseas.
Better than paying s fortune. As the shows last 45mins anyway.
Many could fast forward through them.

And why do they have to distort the weather map to make Scotland look smaller than Cornwall??? It's really annoying.

 

[Johnuk123]

Who would pay hundreds of pounds a year to watch BBC??
This is BBC1 tomorrow:
Breakfast, Wanted Down Under, Homes under the Hammer, Saints and Scrongers, Helicopter Heroes down under, Bargain Hunt, news, Doctors, Father Brown, The Link, Escape to the country, Pointless, newd again etc etc etc.

BBC are the worst channel in my opinion. They lie about being none biased. They have used anti terrorist laws to track non payment of licenses. They force people to pay their costs. They show cheap reality TV constantly. They have more repeats than ever before. They are planning to scrap BBC3 so a 1+1 channel will start. Imagine watching the news an hour later! Why should we pay?? This is totally unfair.

I would rather BBC showed adverts. They already allow Product placement on their shows, they constantly advertise themselves on breakfast and the news. And the World service does it overseas.
Better than paying s fortune. As the shows last 45mins anyway.
Many could fast forward through them.

Everybody I know has Sky plus so adverts are irrelevant you don't have to watch them.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Everybody I know has Sky plus so adverts are irrelevant you don't have to watch them.

Precisely my point. BBCs no advert policy now has little value.

And another point, why are BBC more deserving on the money than ITV or CBS or UKTV or any other channel?
Imagine if all rail fares went to Merseyrail regardless of who you use
It's completely corrupt!

 

[Johnuk123]

Precisely my point. BBCs no advert policy now has little value.

And another point, why are BBC more deserving on the money than ITV or CBS or UKTV or any other channel?
Imagine if all rail fares went to Merseyrail regardless of who you use
It's completely corrupt!

A national broadcaster is such an outdated concept, it used to have no competition but now the money is pouring in and it's simply not needed anymore.

Sky does everything better, the news is better, the sport is absolutely untouchable and some of the drama series are just superb, but the best bit is if you don't want Sky you can cancel it, you can't cancel the BBC.

 

[jon0844]

Haven't you noticed the BBC is packed with reality shows you can't move for some idiot making cakes.

I agree with that, but that's not all the BBC does. Look at the other channels, radio stations and their websites. There's a lot more educational stuff too.

Of course it's a shame they've resorted to dumbed down TV like the rest, and I still hate EastEnders for its depressing view of the world, but some of those productions are sold abroad for large sums of money. Look at the success of Top Gear.

Has the BBC got the balance right? Perhaps not, but if the BBC only had advertising income then you'd only have these shows and the other stuff would be axed.

Even with the cap on the fee, the BBC is being forced to make large cuts.

Also, as I've said before, ITV doesn't want the BBC to have advertising as it will mean it is sure to lose revenue. I'm sure a lot of advertisers would favour being on the BBC and take their spend from elsewhere to do so.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is BBC1 tomorrow:
Breakfast, Wanted Down Under, Homes under the Hammer, Saints and Scrongers, Helicopter Heroes down under, Bargain Hunt, news, Doctors, Father Brown, The Link, Escape to the country, Pointless, newd again etc etc etc.

Breakfast is fine, Pointless is reasonable and my mum likes Father Brown. But day-time TV is awful no matter what channel it's on it might be more informative to look at prime time programs 6pm to around 10pm/11pm. But generally speaking as long as people are watching the programs does it matter if you don't like them?

BBC are the worst channel in my opinion.

A crucial point, your opinion.

They lie about being non biased.

I disagree as far as news goes there pretty good. But the thing that strikes me is that they seem to be accused of being biased by various different people in various different directions (accused of bias against the Greens by the left, of bias against the UKIP by the right, of bias in favour of Labour by the Tories and in favour of the Tories by Labour for example). In which case it strikes me that perhaps they are doing something right if all sides say their biased in favour of the other!

They have used anti terrorist laws to track non payment of licenses.

Source? (Honest question I'm interested in learning more).

They force people to pay their costs.

That surely is down the law? And if the law says they can recover their costs why shouldn't they?

They show cheap reality TV constantly.

If people are watching it what's the problem? I don't especially enjoy reality TV shows so I don't watch them and instead watch shows the BBC commision that I do like.

They have more repeats than ever before.

Source? (As above I'm interested to learn more)

They are planning to scrap BBC3 so a 1+1 channel will start. Imagine watching the news an hour later!

Why not watch the news an hour after it's broadcast? Not everyone remembers to set up a recorder or wants to watch things on IPlayer. +1 channels still appear to be popular as they can be found all over the place and again, if people are watching it why get rid of it?

Why should we pay?? This is totally unfair.

I don't know that it's unfair. But certainly the way they pursue it is totally unacceptable and I'll happily consider supporting any motion that will see their collections contracter tone down their letters.

I would rather BBC showed adverts. They already allow Product placement on their shows, they constantly advertise themselves on breakfast and the news. And the World service does it overseas.

Urgh no thanks I prefer not having to fast forward through adverts. Also what's wrong with self-promotion? It's how I learn about loads of programs that I'm interested in but otherwise wouldn't see!

Better than paying s fortune.

It's £145.50 per year which is not what I'd call a fortune...

As the shows last 45mins anyway.

The edited shows for broadcast overseas might be 45 minutes but the shows shown on our BBC are usually either 30 minutes or a straight hour. There are a few odd exceptions (Pointless for example) but the big ticket items (Top Gear for example) are either 30 or 60 minutes and then edited down for broadcast overseas.

And why do they have to distort the weather map to make Scotland look smaller than Cornwall??? It's really annoying.

Can't say I'd noticed but perhaps it's related to the projection angle? The 'camera' angle is tilted rather than straight down on most shots.

 

[jon0844]

And why do they have to distort the weather map to make Scotland look smaller than Cornwall??? It's really annoying.

I think you need to get a sense of perspective!

 

[90sWereBetter]

The day the BBC stops being a public broadcaster is the day we succumb to American-style TV. Be careful what you wish for. Whilst I think there needs to be reform as regards to how it is funded, privatising the BBC should never happen, it would rather quite tragic.

 

[Johnuk123]

The day the BBC stops being a public broadcaster is the day we succumb to American-style TV. Be careful what you wish for. Whilst I think there needs to be reform as regards to how it is funded, privatising the BBC should never happen, it would rather quite tragic.

It belongs with starched collars, spats and top hats it's old fashioned and is from another age.

When the flowerpot men went that was it for me.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Arguing about the quality of the BBC just ends up being subjective. Some of the things on the BBC are very good and some of them are not. Some of the things on Sky are very good and some of them are not. "American style TV" is often used as an insult but many of the best programmes- 24, Mad Men, Game of Thrones- are made commercially by US TV stations.

It's the same with arguing about bias. I think they are generally biased in favour of whichever party is in power, because the BBC is so reliant on the Government for its continued existence. When Labour are in then they suck up to Labour (see Gilligan), when the Tories are in they suck up to the Tories (look at Robinson, the ex-Tory president). As with any other "state broadcaster", they do what the government tells them to do.

My issue with the BBC remains choice, and the way payment is enforced. The TV Licence is payable even if you hate the BBC and never watch it or listen to it. If you don't pay you go to prison. I don't like Sky so I don't buy Sky. Where's my choice for the BBC?