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%
Results 1 to 25 of 44
Thread: [UK WHTers] TV Licensing?
Hybrid View
-
06-27-2005, 02:05 AM #1Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-27-2005, 02:25 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- 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!
-
06-27-2005, 02:26 AM #3Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
06-27-2005, 02:30 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-27-2005, 02:35 AM #5Web Hosting Master
- 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?
-
06-27-2005, 02:53 AM #6Web Hosting Master
- 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?
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.
-
06-27-2005, 02:55 AM #7Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
06-27-2005, 03:01 AM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2001
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 2,567
So you agree with the fee?
-
06-27-2005, 03:20 AM #9Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-27-2005, 03:35 AM #10Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-27-2005, 03:45 AM #11Disabled
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- chica go go
- Posts
- 11,876
I think it's absolutely crazy.
how are people notified of breaking news?
-
06-27-2005, 04:08 AM #12Web Hosting Master
- 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?
-
06-27-2005, 04:17 AM #13Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 514
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!
-
06-27-2005, 04:50 AM #14Nothing to see move along.
- 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
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.
-
06-27-2005, 05:23 AM #15Newbie
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Cleveland, OH
- Posts
- 5
i am not from the UK and i agree..
-
06-27-2005, 06:23 AM #16Resident Liverpool FC Fan
- 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
-
06-27-2005, 06:25 AM #17Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 514
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!
-
06-27-2005, 06:31 AM #18Resident Liverpool FC Fan
- 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.
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
-
06-27-2005, 06:46 AM #19Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 514
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 optionNote to self: Add something funny!
Search is your friend!
-
06-27-2005, 07:36 AM #20Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
06-27-2005, 07:39 AM #21Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 514
I would pay more for emmerdale
Note to self: Add something funny!
Search is your friend!
-
06-27-2005, 07:56 AM #22Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 56
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.
-
06-27-2005, 07:57 AM #23Web Hosting Master
- 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).
-
06-27-2005, 08:08 AM #24Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 56
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).
-
06-27-2005, 08:10 AM #25Web Hosting Guru
- 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.