Options
TV license and catchup TV
oilman
Posts: 4,529 Forum Member
✭✭✭
We all know you have to have a TV license to watch TV if you own a TV set, even if you never use it.
However, as far as I understand, if you watched catch-up TV (not live TV) over internet, you did not require a license. However, now the main catch-up services also have ability to show live TV, which they did not a while back.
Thus do you now need a license even if you do not have a TV?
One could ask how this could be enforced?
Consider Denmark : Instead of a TV license, they have a "media tax" (at least they are honest calling it a tax). If you can receive any media via any source (radio, tv, broadband internet) you have to pay the media tax. It is virtually impossible to avoid this, as most people have internet these days, and the authorities know everything (Denmark is in many ways an Orwellian state - Big Brother knows all).
The only exception I think is over mobile internet (as yet the Danish have not worked out how to tax that, but given the their ruthless Stalinesque approach to tax they will find a way sooner or later!).
All the current rumblings re TV license leads me to suspect the TV license will be scrapped but a new media tax will be introduced.
I actually wonder how much of the TV license paid by public actually goes to BBC anyway? Is it like the infamous Road Tax where we all know the income is not spent on roads (UK goverment does not ring-fence tax generally).
However, as far as I understand, if you watched catch-up TV (not live TV) over internet, you did not require a license. However, now the main catch-up services also have ability to show live TV, which they did not a while back.
Thus do you now need a license even if you do not have a TV?
One could ask how this could be enforced?
Consider Denmark : Instead of a TV license, they have a "media tax" (at least they are honest calling it a tax). If you can receive any media via any source (radio, tv, broadband internet) you have to pay the media tax. It is virtually impossible to avoid this, as most people have internet these days, and the authorities know everything (Denmark is in many ways an Orwellian state - Big Brother knows all).
The only exception I think is over mobile internet (as yet the Danish have not worked out how to tax that, but given the their ruthless Stalinesque approach to tax they will find a way sooner or later!).
All the current rumblings re TV license leads me to suspect the TV license will be scrapped but a new media tax will be introduced.
I actually wonder how much of the TV license paid by public actually goes to BBC anyway? Is it like the infamous Road Tax where we all know the income is not spent on roads (UK goverment does not ring-fence tax generally).
0
Comments
Your queries regarding how much the BBC is provided with has been answered in numerous threads on Digital Spy possibly you could do a search or there's a thing called Google or Bing.
In fact there is currently a thread on this page in which MP's suggestions have been thoroughly discussed, I'd suggest you look in there rather than start another thread.
All you will get is some loons ranting about how that ain't going to pay etc..rather than have a thoughtful discussion.
I wait with interest how this will unfold. But no matter what, I will never pay another penny to the BBC.
I want to watch TV in the UK, therefore I have to pay for a TV Licence. It's what.... £145.50? you can pay in instalments if you can't afford the one-off payment, but annually that's roughly 36 pints of beer I'm not buying/drinking
I'm not going to miss 36 pints of beer across 365 days, so I don't give a toss enough to complain every 10 minutes about a TV Licence.... if we didn't have the TV Licence, we wouldn't have the BBC - end of. there would be no memorable TV shows over the years, loads of new comedies/dramas etc wouldn't exist and you know what, we'd probably be miserable because of it!
if we do away with the TV Licence and don't replace it with a "tax", then does everyone really want to sit and watch crap like X-Factor and Jeremy Kyle all the time??? high-priced drama only exists because the BBC is making the equivalent on another channel, so ITV/C4 etc have to compete in order to gain viewers
I seriously question whether all these people so outraged by the simple fact that you need to buy the licence are the same people who go around supermarkets checking whether toilet paper is cheaper in Tescos or Asda this week just to bag a bargain!
Over & out. As you were.
No you only need a licence to watch live tv...you can still have a tv without a licence.
fixed that for ya
The TVL is probably unique in being used to fund the activity that gives it its name.
So you feel its OK to charge those who dont watch TV a tax of some sort just so you dont get crappy TV?
I have always had a licence but stopped watching TV a long time ago but still kept the TV and licence in case I changed my mind.. Now I got rid of the TV and will not be paying sod all for you to watch so called good quality TV. Even if I have to go to prison for none payment. So be it! But there are many many people now who are not buying a TV licence even when they watch TV, so I very much doubt that will be putting all of those in prison let alone me.
I am glad someone corrected that. i would be in trouble if we needed a licence to own a TV.
At the moment watching Catch up Tv is legal without a licence and owning a Tv is legal without a licence. Watching live Tv, be it on Iplayer, TV transmission or any other way is not legal.
As for paying or not paying, surly it is up to the individual if they want to pay for the BBC? I know the DG of the BBc wants to bring in a media tax, but I doubt it will happen and if it does it will be years. I still would not pay.
there is a very simple solution - just increase tax by something like .08% or increase NI by 1% or something.
doesn't matter who you are, or what you earn, you end up paying a set amount each month from your wages/income and that pays your "media tax"
doesn't need to be separate, it's just once it's in the HMRC/Treasury systems, they need to appropriate portion out a figure to the various bodies who receive it (i.e. BBC receives £X, C4 receives £Y, S4C receives £Z and so on)
I'd prefer to keep the TVL, because if a media tax was enforced we would probably have no alternative but to pay it. At present there's an option to opt out of the TVL which we are seriously considering as we rarely watch any BBC content or live TV, we can easily get by with catch up and Blurays, plus the £145.50 can go towards and extra 36 pints of beer.
As others have pointed out, this isn't true - making virtually all of your post wrong.
So do you take a percentage off benefit claimants? Or state retirement pensions? Or does the taxpayer subsidise these groups? Not easy to implement and adminster such a system is the point and could end up cost prohibitive. There are already massive changes underfoot for the benefits system, which are not wholly popular, so can't see any successive Government top slicing any benefit for a TV/media tax (call it what you will).
But why should people pay for the channels, any channel if they do not watch it? It will never happen anyway, or if it does it will be years away.
If the BBC do not want people to watch their online content without a licence then there are ways to get around that. Each Tv licence have a number, use that to stick into Iplayer or other content.
But no, I do not agree with everyone paying for the licence, I know of a family who do not even have a Tv, so why should they pay?
I ask a simple question and I get pedantics who bitch about license versus licence, Road Tax etc, and so on. Not a single thoughtful answer. I have never experienced such a pathetic response on any of the other DS forums I'm glad to say. Don't you want to help people even if you just point them to a previous answer. I accept I should have searched first but that is no excuse for basically rude responses - shame on most (not all) of you.
I'm forced to pay for schools even though I don't have children. And train and bus subsidies though I have a car. And council sports centres though I belong to a gym. And libraries, parks, opera and ballet subsidies....
To be fair pointing out that you got the actual law fundamentally wrong on a key point is not "being pedantic".
And you bought up road tax in your original comment!
If you want an answer, IMHO having a PSB like the BBC is a net benefit to the quality of life in the UK, for many reasons. As technology is rapidly moving beyond what the licence fee can provide for, I'm in favour of a media tax of the type that Ireland & Germany have implemented.
There.
All a bit different from one TV/radio station.
Was it a simple question? To be honest I am not sure what the question was.
You have been told that you do not need a TV licence to have a TV, but you do need one for watching live TV.
I do not care how you spell licence, but people was just pointing it out.
I am not being rude, just trying to get to what you was asking?
Oh here we go again, trying to compare the BBC with other services.
It is a different thing, the BBC is not that important.
Who subsidises ballet? Our council have stopped funding a load of services or cut it down.
Lets see, oh yeah, our Library funding have been cut, our theatre have also had their funding cut, and soon they will have none from the council. Bus services have also been cut and one day you may need them. I do not drive, but my tax goes to keep the roads in good order, not that they are doing much of that at the moment..
Our leisure centre and swimming pool, again having funds cut. Parks are nice, somewhere to walk, for the kids to play, if they was not funded what would happen to them? Talking of which, our council is selling of one of the larger ones, called Queenswoods.
Even our public toilets haver been hit and we now got less in the city.
So why do you think the BBc should be allowed to get a fixed rate where other services have to struggle?The BBC is not special, just another broadcaster that have had the privilege of having a fixed income and not worrying aboutwhere the money is coming from.
Absolutely right mate. A brilliant post.
I think the only beef 'the antis' have is they either expect everything for free or they only want to pay for what they use. Regarding the former, there is no such thing as a free lunch and regarding the latter, they forget that private means a poorer 'service' at a vastly increased cost. Sky, for example, costs £855 a year...seven times the cost of the tv licence and with ads thrown in for good measure...and before anyone roles out the whole 'choice' argument, there is no choice. If you want sport, you have to pay for a whole load of content you don't want in order to get the content that you do want. Not good at all.
The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world...quality UK programming at an affordable cost for all, available to all.
Isn't it actially a variety of TV and Radio stations which often produce output that commercial media won't?
Or you can see it as the UK's leading media provider that generates local, regional, national & world wide tv and radio services as well as the web site + all the catch up services that it sustains. You could view it as the DG described it the other day, as a bastion against the Americanisation of our culture. You could see it as an intrinsic part of the cultural landscape in the UK, one that on balance improves the quality of life in the UK and further afield, and as a result transferring its funding to a tax would be justifiable, in the way that Germany, Ireland and apparently Denmark sees it. Or you can dismiss it all as worthless junk and insist that your view should take priority and that the BBC should become self-funding and subject to all the commercial pressures that make ITV, C4, C5 etc so watchable. Not.
I hope the debate about its funding is a sensible one and that it either retains the licence fee, or moves it to a tax-based system that could reduce the cost per person, if all taxpayers contributed rather than one person per household as currently exists.