View Poll Results: do you agree with having a tv license?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm from the UK and agree with it

    15 46.88%
  • I'm from the UK and do not agree with it

    7 21.88%
  • I'm not from the UK and agree with it

    2 6.25%
  • I'm not from the UK and I disagree

    8 25.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    FT Worth, TX
    Posts
    5,096

    [UK WHTers] TV Licensing?

    I recently found out from a friend in order to have a tv in the UK you must pay a license of 126 pound license and if they find out you have no license they fund you 1,000 pounds and from what i'm told this is done for the BBC. I'm wondering do you think this is fair considering in america we get all the free news, television, etc whatever we want to watch without paying any license?

    anti licensing site: http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
    Kerry Jones

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,567
    Most certainly – Especially when factoring in the quality of our news compared to that offered by commercial channels such as those in the US. The license fee covers the BBC TV channels, it covers the BBC radio stations, it covers the BBC’s website – The BBC’s radio is the best when compared to commercial ones. There are no adverts on BBC Radio 2, and you’ve BBC Radio 4 which is a very good listen to.

    The BBC is constantly rated as the best news broadcaster, and is constantly winning awards.

    I’d like those people who disagree with the TV license to actually go and live in a country which has commercial TV stations, and just see how bad they really are – Maybe then they’d stop complaining!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    Wow i never knew that. If you dont pay they do come and see if you have a arial or a telly. It is pretty crazy especially as we have then to pay a extra $60 a month for the extra TV Channels (Thats the top package) With the £126 we only get BBC1, BBC2, ITV 1, CH4, AND CH5, Of which most are quite rubbish.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    FT Worth, TX
    Posts
    5,096
    what about the people who don't want to watch the BBC and just regular old television? I can tell you if such licensing occured the BBC would never be on my box despite it may be quality news or not. If they're so desperate for money why doesn't the government fund them in the form of taxes like PBS?
    Kerry Jones

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    Originally posted by Kerry Jones
    what about the people who don't want to watch the BBC and just regular old television? I can tell you if such licensing occured the BBC would never be on my box despite it may be quality news or not. If they're so desperate for money why doesn't the government fund them in the form of taxes like PBS?
    You have to have a TV license to do anything even get the extra channels so you dont have a choice. You have a TV or Arial in your house then you have to pay the £126 no way around it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,567
    what about the people who don't want to watch the BBC and just regular old television? I can tell you if such licensing occured the BBC would never be on my box despite it may be quality news or not. If they're so desperate for money why doesn't the government fund them in the form of taxes like PBS?
    The BBC is a public broadcasting service, and in fact the BBC is probably the most well known public broadcaster. Being a public broadcaster doesn’t mean you have to be funded in the form of taxes; although they are looking at an alternative to the TV license fee because more and more people are watching it via the Internet and listen to the BBC radio stations over the Internet – They’ve been thinking about having a Computer License Charge, although some have suggested paying for it like we pay water or gas… personally I think they’ll just divert revenue from taxes to the BBC.

    It’s not so much that the BBC is desperate for money, it’s that it is a publicly funded broadcaster and its aim is to “inform, educate and entertain”; and the Government doesn’t want to privatise the BBC.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    Originally posted by Anjay
    The BBC is a public broadcasting service, and in fact the BBC is probably the most well known public broadcaster. Being a public broadcaster doesn’t mean you have to be funded in the form of taxes; although they are looking at an alternative to the TV license fee because more and more people are watching it via the Internet and listen to the BBC radio stations over the Internet – They’ve been thinking about having a Computer License Charge, although some have suggested paying for it like we pay water or gas… personally I think they’ll just divert revenue from taxes to the BBC.

    It’s not so much that the BBC is desperate for money, it’s that it is a publicly funded broadcaster and its aim is to “inform, educate and entertain”; and the Government doesn’t want to privatise the BBC.
    So you agree with the fee?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,567
    So you agree with the fee?
    Without doubt. It’s a measly amount to pay, when factoring in what you get, and the quality of the service you get. I am glad though that at the last review of the BBC’s Royal Charter, they said “reduced emphasis on "ratings for ratings' sake" and copycat programmes (e.g reality television).”

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,758
    And how do you feel about the US getting all this for free? Nice way too look at it though

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,357
    I agree and disagree in some ways. The plus side is that there are no adverts on the BBC channels. You can watch a film from start to finish with out it stopping for a commercial break every 15 - 30 minutes.

    But they are very strict and require it even if you do not want to have anything to do with the BBC channels and just watch the other standard ones with commercials (ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5). I guess that this would be hard to prove if you didnt watch the BBC channels though and how do you monitor that if they changed the ruling on it.

    To be honest I put disagree but at the same time I am not overly bothered about it as it isnt too much.
    -- Matthew

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,876
    I think it's absolutely crazy.

    how are people notified of breaking news?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,569
    considering hte quality/range of tv and radio programmes, not to mention the different websites they produce i think £126 is pretty good really. adverts every 15 minutes really annoy me (although tempted to get sky+) and to be able to watch something quality without them sounds like a good deal. do you think someone like itv or channel 5 would bring you shows as good or innovative as spooks or hustle?

  13. #13
    I actually remember reading in the papaer once that someone had the reciver removed from their tv as they only ever watched sky, and without the reciever they couldnt get bbc, and went to court so they didnt have to pay the lience.
    Note to self: Add something funny!
    Search is your friend!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,739
    Originally posted by The Napster
    And how do you feel about the US getting all this for free? Nice way too look at it though
    What do you mean the same way we get ITV free with the adverts.

    Have you seen an american programme you dont even get past the opening credits before they have a bunch of adverts on thats why you get a few mins of programme before the credits start to roll so they can get you hooked before the adverts start.


    What a crappy way to do it i can live with paying 126 quid a year i pay a lot more than that for sky and its a load of crap and filled with adverts for ring tones with little or no original programming and whats more on the very few occasions they do show a programme they made they show at least 15 times in a month to get the moneys worth out of it.


    I prefer our way to be honest.

    What i object to most about the fee though is how some of the money is used to fund things like jollys for the managment thats a disgrace, like how they will book a big posh hotel to hold a meeting 100 yards from the TV centre where there are perfectly good rooms to meet in and not only that but they book limo's to take them

    still all in all i think the BBC is good value for money.....

    On a side note why have you got 2 options for people to agree or disagree with it when they are not from the UK, I mean what on earth have they got to disagree/agree with?

    Originally posted by awibble
    I actually remember reading in the papaer once that someone had the reciver removed from their tv as they only ever watched sky, and without the reciever they couldnt get bbc, and went to court so they didnt have to pay the lience.

    Thats utter rubbish, If you have anything capable of recieving a tv signal including the sky box as that gets the BBC then you have to pay for the license, Even if you have a video recorder but no TV then you have to pay as the video is capable of recieving the signal.

    If all you have is a radio then you have to license that (a bit cheaper) or if you have a black & white telly then the license is cheaper too.
    Last edited by phill2003; 06-27-2005 at 04:56 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    5
    i am not from the UK and i agree..

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Liverpool, England, UK.
    Posts
    2,571
    I will deffo support the lisence fee. Just over £2 per week for high quality programming of the standard that the BBC broadcast and don't forget, thats not all we get, we get:

    Television Services

    BBC1
    BBC2
    BBC3
    BBC4
    BBC News 24
    BBC Parliament
    BBCi Interactive Television Services
    BBC1 Regional Broadcasting
    CBBC
    CBeebies
    ITV1 Subsidised
    Channel 4 Subsidised
    Channel 5 Subsidised

    Radio Services

    BBC Radio 1
    BBC Radio 1 Xtra
    BBC Radio 2
    BBC Radio 3
    BBC Radio 4
    BBC Radio 5 Live
    BBC Radio 5 Live Sports Extra
    BBC Radio 6 Music
    BBC Radio 7
    BBC Asian Network
    BBC World Service (in 43 different languages)
    Over 40 Local BBC Radio Stations

    Internet

    bbc.co.uk including the best 24 hour news and sports coverage certainly from a UK website, a wealth of knowledge and teaching tools (yes there are about 10 different ways to learn Spanish alone on bbc.co.uk), all the information you could ever need on past and present BBC programming and of course soming soon, the BBC Archive, with almost every popular BBC television programme available to stream to watch whenever you like.

    Pretty much the best website in the world in my opinion.

    Advert Free

    And all this is 100% advert free, on the television, radio and on the internet.

    All this is worth a lot more then just over £2.00 per week!!!
    Xcellweb.net - Quality Web Solutions That Work!
    █ Web Hosting | Web Servers | Shoutcast | Domain Names

    Providing High Quality Web Solutions Since July 2002!
    AgilityHosting.net - UK & European cPanel Web Hosting

  17. #17
    Its great Value yes, but what if you dont watch it?

    What if you dont use the bbc website? and only listen to commercial radio stations? and only watch sky sports for the matches?

    I think they should have a way to opt-in and out of it, if you dont pay, you carnt get any of the subsdised channles.
    Note to self: Add something funny!
    Search is your friend!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Liverpool, England, UK.
    Posts
    2,571
    Originally posted by awibble
    Its great Value yes, but what if you dont watch it?

    What if you dont use the bbc website? and only listen to commercial radio stations? and only watch sky sports for the matches?

    I think they should have a way to opt-in and out of it, if you dont pay, you carnt get any of the subsdised channles.
    Either way, its a PSB, the public should pay for it.

    Just like council tax, many people across the country do not get the levels of service they desire, but we all have to pay it.

    Again, tax when you work, why should people pay into the NHS if they never use it and why should we pay to support the long term dole queuers? We do not want to, but we have to.

    Anybody who has a TV most certainly watches BBC at some time, such is the range and diversity of programming they have on.

    I myself pay £60 per month for Sky+ Multiroom with around 400 channels etc, however I would say BBC1 is still my most watched channel on average. There are not many channels on Sky Digital that compare, except for niches like Sky Sports for my football, Sky Movies for a few blockbusters, LivingTV for most haunted, Discovery range of channels for general docu's, UKTV Gold and G2 for classic comedy etc...

    Last edited by WirralNet Matt; 06-27-2005 at 06:35 AM.
    Xcellweb.net - Quality Web Solutions That Work!
    █ Web Hosting | Web Servers | Shoutcast | Domain Names

    Providing High Quality Web Solutions Since July 2002!
    AgilityHosting.net - UK & European cPanel Web Hosting

  19. #19
    I see what your saying, i think less people would complain about it if it was added on as part of the main tax, with it been seperate, its just another thing that you have to pay for. It might sound silly, but if you have to pay for a+b+c+d at $200 or abcd at $200, i would think more people would want the 'all in one' package.

    Just my option
    Note to self: Add something funny!
    Search is your friend!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    1,531
    Theres Nothing wrong with it,

    Ive been america, and My god, YOUR TV SUCKS!

    Adverts every couple of minutes, The Adverts are so corny, and you guys just cant act in some of your programs, no offense

    Also £126 a year, for Eastenders, Its well worth it

  21. #21
    I would pay more for emmerdale
    Note to self: Add something funny!
    Search is your friend!

  22. #22
    Hmm I don't think most of us in the UK are too bothered about the TV licence - things like this stop are society becoming too commercialised - which I think is a good thing.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    674
    Anyone who has watched American commercial televsion and then watched several hours programming on the BBC surely cannot disagree with the license fee. The quality and diversity the BBC provide is simply unparralled. It's £2 a week. That's about the price of a pint of beer, it's nothing. I would reckon than most people waste that much every week (lose it, spent on something they don't need etc).

  24. #24
    Originally posted by Umbongo
    Anyone who has watched American commercial televsion and then watched several hours programming on the BBC surely cannot disagree with the license fee. The quality and diversity the BBC provide is simply unparralled. It's £2 a week. That's about the price of a pint of beer, it's nothing. I would reckon than most people waste that much every week (lose it, spent on something they don't need etc).
    I would agree with that. The TV licence fee is well worth it. I am glad I have never hadto watch hours on end of US television.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    347
    I think the money should go to channel 4, they have better shows than the bbc and also sponsor the arts like the bbc does.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •