I am anti-TV licence but I do have a TV licence.
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast - this means that if you download or stream programmes, but not as they're being shown that you DON'T need to be covered by a licence. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
For a while we didn't have any TV so didn't require a licence as we just flat out refused to be ripped off to the tune of £145 per year - or £45 if you have leaped back in time to the 1970s and have a black and white TV. You can also pay monthly and quarterly (every 3 months.) The best options are to pay monthly and yearly as there is a £1.25 premium that is incurred on the quarterly payments as a premium due to the 'pay as you go' nature of the payments.
A licence covers the place you live in and all receivers at that address. This can be tricky for students or people staying in a house that is spit into rooms and not everyone is covered in this case.
The crazy thing is that officers working for the TV Licensing office can come into your home or work to inspect all TV equipment - but you don't have to let them in. We had a visit from them in our old address (where we didn't have a licence or a TV) and they just came into our living room and then left. Had we been more deceptive we could have wheeled the TV into our bedroom - or had a TV in the bedroom!
What I find disgusting about the licence is the 50% blind concession. This entitles registered blind and severely sight impaired individuals to a 50% off their licence, bringing it to £72.75 for a full colour TV licence and £24.50 for black and white. Oh and the kind old BBC say if you just have a digital box that produces sounds and no TV programmes then you don't have to worry about being covered by a licence.
I think the licence should be made free to those who are registered blind and sight impaired. What a joke!
Oh yes and those over 75 qualify for a free licence, also. Despite retirement age being 65.
The TV Licence is supposed to go back into so-called quality programming but aside a few good CBeebies programmes and EastEnders I fail to see how my tax (as it's a tax) money is being spent to entertain me. More like being sunk into importing all our good TV over to America, being sold off to TV networks out there and of course the money made off the merchandise from all these BBC shows. Where do we get a cut of this? Oh yeah. We don't.
Most other countries like Australia and recently New Zealand have scrapped their TV licences - because people wouldn't have it. And I think it's high time the BBC became commercial like all the other channels and stop sucking off the teet of British citizens in order to fund programming!
I hate TV License with a passion as I receive no benefit from it.
A TV License is required by anyone that watches or records television programs, whether it is on a TV set, computer or mobile phone. The money from the TV License goes towards the BBC and as a "thank you" they do not have breaks half way through shows like ITV. If you are caught watching TV without a license then you will be fined and the enforcers are quite active in surveying neighbourhoods and sending out letters.
The only advantage that I can see personally do this license is that if BBC are showing a film then you get to watch the whole film without having breaks every 15 minutes, making a 2 hour film last roughly another 30 minutes.
I do not watch BBC channels. I have a TV, I pay for my TV License, but I do not watch BBC channels therefore what am I actually paying for? I feel as though I have bought a car and not drove it ... pointless right? I love Channel 4, E4, Fiver and Five US. I can spend a lazy day off work flicking through these channels and find something to watch. However the BBC never have anything on that interests me, so I do not believe that I should pay for a TV license when I am not using BBC services.
I cannot see the BBC scrapping the TV License any time soon, because most households have at least one colour TV. This means that most households in the UK are paying £145.50 a year, which equates to a lot of money for the BBC. Alternatively, technology could be used to block BBC channels from a TV if that household has not paid their TV license. People that watch the BBC News and Eastenders etc would have to pay, while people like me watching Friends on E4 would not.
I own and pay for my tv lisence because i know its the law, and i face a huge fine if i dont.
My problem is i dont watch sports and i hate adverts. Yet i pay for this!
Sky tv is much much better you get a choice of what kind of media channels you want but still you get adverts pushed onto you,
Now i feel cheated in a way because they get payed for the advertising theres big money in advertising.
But do consumers really want to see it?? let alone pay for it?
yet every year the tv lisence fees continue to rise.
Why is the british public charged for every little thing they can possibly squeeze?
The usa doesnt know what a tv lisence is or a rod lisence for that matter,
We seem to get overcharge greatly and we seem to get alot less for our money too.
Most of the price of fuel is vat. And whilst the usa and china etc enjoy very high speed broadband 300mb in some cases. Most of the uk is limited to around 2mb they say "up to 8mb" but you never really get that.
Im currently paying £27.99 for a up to 8mb connection although i only get 2.5mb.
If you compare this to say a 50mb connection in the usa. This really is steep and heavily over charged and no way value for money.
The UK needs to change the price of living is reduculess.
I would first like to point out that in my view the tv licence is an outdated expensive alternative tax that should have been done away with a long time ago (just so you can get the idea of where I am coming from).
Of the charge of £120 you get the pleasure of watching a handful if BBC channels most of which you don't really watch not to mention radio, iplayer etc etc. In the day and age of skyplus where adverts can be fast-forwarded I would gladly do away with this fee in return of kellogg's advertising rice crispies in the middle of match of the day (just so long as they don't start employing andy townsend for the punditry!).
The fact that they make it illegal not to have a licence is criminal itself. I feel that at the very least if we are having to pay for a licence then like voters for parliament, we should have the right to choose who is running the beeb.
This is not to say that the BBC don't make excellent programmes but why should they over all other companies have this special form of funding. I would gladly see it go private to save the general public money they could otherwise save during these hard times.
I find the tv licence a really strange bill. Mine is set up on direct debit so I virtually see nothing of it, and forget about it until the annual statement arrives, telling me how much the next year will cost. I think at the moment it's about £12.00 a month, which doesn't sound a huge amount but that works out at £144 a year, which is a lot for some people.
I know that some people think they have the right to not pay the licence and run the risk. I think this is actually a bit silly, because if you get caught without one, there are massive fines, and I don't think it's worth the risk.
I think you can get discount from your tv licence if you only have a black and white tv (because there's so many of those around), or if you are partially sighted.
The tv licence is actually one of those bills, which when you move house, isn't a complete and utter nightmare. You can simply call a number from the bill, and change it over the phone, they tell you that no paperwork will be sent out, but that you are still covered. I personally found this a huge relief when moving, as every other company seems to make it the most difficult thing in the world, when it's something so simple, that so many people do.
I personally quite like the tv licence, it basically goes towards paying for the BBC channels, which do produce some of the best programmes around. Granted a lot of them are pretty old fashioned and not all that interesting but when you see David Attenborough's "life" or the current Tropic of Cancer series, you realise it might be worth paying. Also, as the BBC has the licence fee, they have no need for advertisements, which I personally find really great, as their programmes actually last an hour, or half an hour. I would actually pay slightly more to not see any adverts on other channels.
I personally don't mind paying my tv licence as I like the BBC and no adverts, but I do understand that some people get annoyed with it.
In the UK, it is illegal to view live TV shows without having a TV licence. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't matter what the hardware is that you are watching the programme on, if you are watching a TV programme, you should have a TV licence, not just if you are actually watching it on a television set.
The licence currently costs just over £140 for a colour licence. A black and white licence is significantly cheaper, just under £50, although I don't know of anyone who watched a black and white television these days.
The money made from the licence funds most of the work of the BBC, and even if you don't use their services, a licence is still required. Some people say that this isn't fair but I absolutely think that it is fair - the BBC produces some of the best media products in the world, and one of the most important reason they are able to do this is because they don't have to pander to advertisers, like ITV, Sky and other commercial channels.
Without the licence fee we would not have the high quality BBC that we currently have, so I am all for keeping it.
I pay my TV licence monthly to the tune of £11.87 per month. My feeling from this is that effectively I'm paying against my will to fund a small range of TV and radio channels that in reality are artificially being kept as a prime service and given a huge advantage against the rest of the industry by funding them and if it was any other service then I feel it would be considered anti competitive and against government and European regulations.
Put it simply, I feel the whole system is outdated and made a lot of sense thirty years ago when we had three channels and the industry was in its youth. Now that you can't move for channels and subscription based channels now also exist then I feel that the BBC no longer deserve this support and should be left to compete with the rest of the industry. I don't feel the charge merits the rewards in this case and I think its unfair when other channels need to compete and even fund their own on demand services that the licence fee provides a blank cheque for one company to do this and I feel it stifles growth as a result.
Overall I really can't see any benefit for this as a service and I think the industry would be better without it as it would encourage growth and give more freedom to the industry as a whole. The only benefit for having this licence is that you wont end up going to court and paying a fine for watching TV and it's the only reason I have one, albeit against my will.
This Christmas the British are faced with 600 hours of repeats according to the Daily Express. A big Ah, for the couch potato who hasn't got anything better to do, while many never have or likely to have that luxury anyway.
When people are paying money for their TV licenses, we do expect new material on the TV and not 600 hours of repeats. Not that I will watch much anyway, but I feel that with the money the companies are making, I expect better and with the internet options that are more apparent and up to date, that becomes an attractive option.
However if you don't pay your TV license like many say they haven't in favour of the internet and i-player; you should disconnect your TV from the areal because you may still get that dreaded knock on the door.
When the TV companies start giving us value for money, I will feel happy to pay a licence fee, because it won't be long until we will have to subscribe and a tax will be put on that as well, but I may also look for options as many others have done.
It is no good going to Sky because they still cost too much as it is, and although they have all the terrestrial channels, why pay for your licence twice?
I won't pull any punches with my views on tv licenses, as I think they are a scandalous extortionate tax. So why do we pay a tv licence? we pay on an annual basis a sum of over 100.00 not for the ownership of a television but the privilege of watching television. However this fee funds the BBC I am comfortable about this for three reasons, firstly because the BBC actually has 2 arms, it's corporate for profit arm and it's "public service" arm.
Secondly because it surely creates a very unhealthy relationship between the state and the broadcaster. Thirdly and just as importantly, our licence fee does not fund the other channels. Where does their income stream come from? they must attract an audience and through that audience they are then able to entice advertisers.
This leaves me in something of a state of disbelief because rightly or wrongly, protectionism has always been taught to me as a negative, something which distorts competition. Therefore it is quite bemusing that television should operate on a two tier basis where the BBC has exclusive rights to force the television viewer to pay to keep them in business.
You can pay on an annual basis for the licence or you can pay monthly however there has been recent warnings that our right to watch television will cost us more very shortly. Perhaps for those who wish not to pay a licence, they should be able to implement a system in which they can't gain access to BBC channels. This would be the fairest system and yet they know that would signal an exodus of licence holders so the tax continues indefinitely.
If I could give this a minus I would!
A Colour TV License is a legal requirement to watch a colour television in the United Kingdom, it must be purchased prior to use and if you are found to be watching television without one you are in line for a big fine.
Cost - £142.50 per year. Unless your over 75 when its free. Also if you are blind or have visual impairment you can apply for a 50% discount.
To watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - whether using a tv, laptop, mobile phone, so be careful.
You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet so long as your watching it on a computer and not a tv.
If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes you don't need one, so you could listen to digital tv through your digital box and your ok, just don't watch it!!
What if I don't pay:
The TV Licensing people have a database of all license holders and have vans scouring the streets who can detect those without, if you are caught without a license, you could be taken to court and fined £1000.
You can pay by direct debit over the phone, online or at the post office.
Part of the license fee goes to the BBC to ensure they maintain 'Quality' output (Hole in the Wall, Cash in the Attic, Snog Marry Avoid) without having to take on advertising like other channels, in an age where we pay for cable or satellite television and the Beeb content is now devalued to such a point that it has few flagship 'quality' shows, I don't think it is a good idea anymore, i'd rather spend my £142.50 per year on Sky and have the choice of channels than pay for one band of channels which I increasingly avoid.
I think in time as BBC try to make money from commercial enterprises and furore over the ridiculous pay and expenses of their employees drags on, they will be asked to find more of the money to manage their channels themselves and hopefully we will be given the choice of whom we want to pay £142.50 to provide television output.
A colour TV licence costs £142.50 this year. A black and white licence costs significantly less. A licence can be bought in a number of ways - a one-off cost which can be paid by post or on-line, direct debit with the cost spread over a year and monthly payments. The licence can be issued by post or by e mail. Once bought, you are issued with a unique licence number on a certificate type licence.
There are a number of conditions attached to a tv licence. These are: you must inform TV Licencing if you move house, the licence only covers the household - children of the household who are students moving away must purchase their own licence, free TV licences are available to the over 75s.
The licence supposedly pays for the quality programming that the BBC creates. The BBC do not use advertising revenue so there are no advert breaks. I'm not sure if this is the wonderful unbroken viewing opportunity that it is made out to be. When training to be a teacher, I was told that students have an attention span of not more than 20 mins and I think that this is true of many of the population. Advert breaks may be not that bad after all. I like to have a break to nip to the loo or the kettle without missing anything and I know I'm not alone in that.
In terms of quality, there are only a few programmes that I rate. The current series of 'The Steet' written by Jimmy McGovern, I believe to be an example of quality. In my opinion, there is not enough of this type of programming. I personally wish there were more costume dramas and adaptations of classics - but then I am quite fond of a frill or two.
It is a cost that I resent paying. Firstly, it is hugely expensive and the cost increases significantly every year. Secondly, there is no choice to opt out of BBC programmes. Thirdly, I think it is a silly old-fashioned idea to have a 'licence' for a machine - a bit like the idea of a dog licence. It is only kept in place because it is a lucrative form of 'tax'.
I worked for the BBC on a number of short contracts some years ago. I was struck by how little diversity there was in the workplace; in a huge workforce there was only one black person, men dominated all of the top jobs and everyone was from a higher socio-economic group. I found it quite depressing and always felt that I was not out of the 'right drawer'. It felt a bit like an elite club - and now I cannot lose the idea that my licence fee continues to support that arrangement. There has been recent noises in the BBC to increase diversity.
In a world of increasing internet access, I feel that the BBC may not be able to completely control who watches their programme. I am pleased that cash-strapped students can avoid a TV licence by only watching i player on their pc's and having no TV.
Personally, I would rather have adverts and no licence fee. I don't think it is value for money.
In my experience, the TV licence has been an excellent 'product' even if it is really a veil for another tax. First and foremost, the positives are that students can claim back TV licence fees (even if they wrongly have to pay for it in the first place) and people over 75 are entitled to a free TV licence.
I would not like to see the BBC with adverts. The BBC provides some really high-quality programming and is renowned the world over. I think it is right that the country should have access to a broadcaster that is funded by the country.
However, I think that some aspects of the TV licence are old fashioned. In the UK, customers need a TV licence to own a TV and then many people complain that the BBC is not in their best interests and that is the company to which most of the money goes.
I believe that no licence should be required to own a TV, but this system should be replaced by a BBC subscription. People who complain would no longer be able to complain because they could buy a TV without a licence and access all channels other than the BBC ones.
Most Britons enjoy watching the BBC, so most would pay for a BBC subscription. I don't think the money should go to anyone other than the BBC because commercial broadcasters such as ITV1 and Channel 4 can fend for themselves.
A BBC subscription could be accessed in multiple ways, making it easier than a TV licence, which requires everyone to sign up through the TVL. People with Sky and Virgin Media could add the BBC package alongside their other packages and have it all under one umbrella - a system with which people are familiar.
I also believe that BBC Worldwide channels should be available as part of this subscription, but supported by adverts. This would give us access to BBC Entertainment (replacement for BBC Prime), BBC Lifestyle, BBC Knowledge and BBC HD International, which have different schedules to the UK BBC bouquet. The only reason we currently have no access to these channels is that there is a legal requirement that no BBC channel carry advertising in the UK. Why can't we have some channels without advertising and some with?
To mention the words 'TV licence' in any crowded gathering is not unlike lighting the touchpaper to a particularly explosive firework. Typical responses include "what a waste of money", "there's never anything worth watching" and "why not make their money from adverts?".
There's no getting away from the fact that most householders resent forking out £142.50 a year for a colour TV licence (that's 39p a day). It is, of course, compulsory if you have the equipment that allows TV programmes to be watched in your home. What does such a princely sum get you? well, there's 2 high quality, my own assessment, TV channels (BBC1 and BBC2), several decent and diverse digital only channels, a plethora of radio stations, the BBC website and iPlayer.
Of course that in itself is not all that you get from the British Broadcasting Corporation, oh no, far from it. You buy into its uninterupted coverage of sporting events, magnificent drama (costume and modern), seriously good documentaries, award winning soaps, quiz shows, high calibre comedy (stand up and sitcom), good (clean) family entertainment, 24 hour a day news coverage, 2 channels devoted soley to kids and so very, very much more.
From my personal view(er's)point, I have in recent times enjoyed the delights of Dr Who, Top Gear, QI, Eastenders, The Antiques Roadshow, Mock The Week, Little Dorrit, Outnumbered, Dragon's Den, Spooks, Hustle, The (US) Masters, Panorama, Strictly Come Dancing, repeats of Dads Army, and FiveLive's sports output. All well crafted, wonderfully executed and free from the irritatingly regular punctuations of commercial breaks. I have all but given up on the opposition - ITV1, C4 and Five - their advert ridden offerings can rarely compete with the Beeb's brilliance.
Detractors may rant on about impartiality, the crass and unforgiveable antics of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, sky-high salaries for the Beeb's top earners, the Top Gear team's yobbish and non-PC behaviour, etc, etc. These are indeed serious issues that need to be addressed but none, in no way, alters the fact that in the BBC we have the premier, most admired, goddamn brilliant in the known universe. Rejoice in that fact, don't begrudge paying a paltry 39p a day for such excellence
I don't like having to pay for a TV licence, I think it's an out-dated practice that should be scrapped.
My £140+ per year goes to the BBC who (to be fair) produce the best programmes out of the 5 terrestrial channels, but they're not a patch on what's on Sky.
I only ever watch the BBC for Match of the Day, Have I Got News For You and Family Guy (on BBC 4), so I feel quite hard-done by that I have to fork out over £100 per year for the privilege. Plus my house is in a valley and the terrestrial signal I receive is of absolutely shocking quality, meaning that I have to subscribe to Sky to get a good signal... I'm already paying £600+ per year for Sky, so I resent having to pay another £140+ for a TV licence.
I'd much rather that the BBC abolished the TV licence fee and introduced advertising instead. That way I'd save £140 per year and just be able to fast-forward through the ads on my Sky+.
TV licensing has been around for years, of which 75% of the fees go towards the UK's biggest independent public broadcaster; the BBC. Fees at April 2008 were £139.50 and £47.00 for colour and black and white TV's respectively. This seems a lot, however, the fees cover households, so no matter how many TV's are in your house, they are all covered under the one fee. Conversely, live in student accommodation with a locked door, and this fee only covers the room you are living in, at £139.50, this is quite a steep price to pay for TV. Fees are set to rise March 31st 2009, so if you can renew yours early, make sure you do!
What does the fee go towards? The fees go towards the BBC's television program schedule, making it possible for them to offer a wide range of interests and shows to the general public. Often the BBC is criticised for wasting good money on poor shows, but looking back at some of the great shows that have been aired in the BBC in recent years, I'd say the BBC were making good use of the fees.
Television license fees are paid annually, and the easiest way to pay for them is online at "www.tvlicensing.co.uk". Here you will find lots of ways to pay, whether you can stump up the cash upfront and pay for the year, or wish to pay monthly, by direct debit. The TV licensing company realise that not everyone can stump up this cash upfront; especially students, which is where the direct debit comes in handy.
By law, if you are watching or recording programs that are being transmitted live you should have a TV license. However, other ways to watch TV such as iPlayer and 4OD can by pass the license fee because they come online minutes/hours after the broadcasting has taken place.
One would assume that a TV license applies to televisions, but this is not necessarily the case. What ever the device may be, watch or record TV live through an product that has viewing capabilities and you will have to pay this fee, that means if you watch live TV on your laptop, you should be paying your fees.
In my opinion TV licensing is and always should be encouraged. I agree that sometimes the BBC get it wrong and their schedules aren't the best, but the majority of the time they get it right. The only downside is the price, just think of all the people in the UK, and how much money must be raised by this fee; is £139.50 too much? I think it is, and believe fees should not be rising. At that price I know when I go off to University I'll stick to iPlayer and 4OD, and use the £139.50 on something more useful!